LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an election petition can be dismissed for not stating material facts and full particulars of corrupt practices.
CASE TYPE: Election Law
Case Name: Karim Uddin Barbhuiya vs. Aminul Haque Laskar & Ors.
[Judgment Date]: 08 April 2024
Date of the Judgment: 08 April 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 282
Judges: Aniruddha Bose, J. and Bela M. Trivedi, J.
Can an election petition be dismissed if it lacks specific details about alleged corrupt practices and does not demonstrate how the election result was affected by the improper acceptance of a nomination? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, emphasizing the need for precise and complete pleadings in election disputes. The Court dismissed an election petition for failing to provide sufficient material facts and particulars of the alleged corrupt practices and for not showing how the result of the election was materially affected by the improper acceptance of the nomination. The judgment was authored by Bela M. Trivedi, J., with Aniruddha Bose, J., concurring.
Case Background
The case revolves around the 2021 Assam Legislative Assembly elections for the Sonai constituency. The appellant, Karim Uddin Barbhuiya, won the election, securing 71,937 votes, while the respondent, Aminul Haque Laskar, received 52,283 votes. Laskar filed an election petition challenging Barbhuiya’s victory, alleging that Barbhuiya had made false declarations in his nomination papers. Specifically, Laskar claimed that Barbhuiya falsely stated his educational qualification as a Bachelor of Arts (B.A.), suppressed his Diploma in Engineering, concealed details of a bank loan, and failed to disclose unliquidated provident fund dues.
Laskar contended that these actions constituted corrupt practices and resulted in the improper acceptance of Barbhuiya’s nomination. Barbhuiya, in response, filed an application seeking the rejection of the election petition, arguing that it lacked material facts and full particulars of the alleged corrupt practices.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 05.03.2021 | Election Commission of India notified the General Election to the Legislative Assembly of Assam. |
| 12.03.2021 | Last date for filing of nomination papers. |
| 11.03.2021 | Karim Uddin Barbhuiya (appellant) filed his nomination papers. |
| 15.03.2021 | Last date for scrutiny of nomination papers. |
| 01.04.2021 | Election for the Sonai constituency concluded; Karim Uddin Barbhuiya won. |
| 04.06.2021 | Aminul Haque Laskar (respondent) filed Election Petition No. 01 of 2021. |
| 24.06.2021 | Gauhati High Court issued notice in the said Election Petition. |
| 23.08.2021 | Karim Uddin Barbhuiya filed an application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC for rejection of the Election Petition. |
| 26.04.2023 | Gauhati High Court dismissed the application filed by Karim Uddin Barbhuiya. |
Course of Proceedings
The Gauhati High Court initially issued a notice on the election petition. Subsequently, Barbhuiya filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), seeking the rejection of the election petition. The High Court dismissed this application, leading Barbhuiya to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The judgment primarily deals with the following legal provisions:
- Section 33A of The Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RP Act): This section mandates that candidates must furnish certain information when filing their nomination papers.
- Section 36 of the RP Act: This section pertains to the scrutiny of nominations by the Returning Officer.
- Section 80 of the RP Act: This section states that no election shall be called in question except by an Election Petition.
- Section 81 of the RP Act: This section pertains to the presentation of the Election Petition.
- Section 83 of the RP Act: This section outlines the contents of an election petition, requiring a concise statement of material facts and full particulars of any corrupt practice. Specifically, Section 83(1)(a) states that an election petition “shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies” and Section 83(1)(b) states that it “shall set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice that the petitioner alleges”.
- Section 87 of the RP Act: This section states that the High Court shall try an Election Petition as nearly as may be, in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
- Section 100 of the RP Act: This section specifies the grounds for declaring an election void. It includes (1)(b) that “any corrupt practice has been committed by a returned candidate” and (1)(d)(i) that “the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a returned candidate, has been materially affected by the improper acceptance of any nomination.”
- Section 123 of the RP Act: This section defines “corrupt practices,” including “undue influence,” which is defined as “any direct or indirect interference or attempt to interfere on the part of the candidate or his agent…with the free exercise of any electoral right.”
- Rule 4A of The Conduct of Election Rules, 1961: This rule requires candidates to file an affidavit in Form 26 at the time of delivering their nomination paper. It states, “The candidate or his proposer, as the case may be, shall, at the time of delivering to the returning officer the nomination paper under sub -section (1) of section 33 of the Act, also deliver to him an affidavit sworn by the candidate before a Magistrate of the first class or a Notary in Form 26.”
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments (Karim Uddin Barbhuiya):
- The election petition was based on baseless and motivated allegations, without any supporting primary documents or reliable sources.
- The pleadings in the election petition did not contain material facts but were based on speculation and did not disclose any triable issues.
- The election petition failed to disclose a complete cause of action and did not contain all “material facts” as required under Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act.
- The election petition did not plead “full particulars” of the alleged corrupt practice of undue influence, as required under Section 83(1)(b) of the RP Act.
- There was no suppression of educational qualifications, bank loan details, or unliquidated provident fund dues.
- The respondent did not raise any written objection at the time of scrutiny of nomination papers by the Returning Officer.
- The allegations did not constitute “undue influence” or “corrupt practices” under Section 123 of the RP Act.
- The election petition should be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, read with Section 83 of the RP Act, relying on the decision in Kanimozhi Karunanidhi vs. A. Santhana Kumar and Others.
Respondent’s Arguments (Aminul Haque Laskar):
- The appellant’s nomination paper was improperly accepted because the affidavit in Form 26 contained false statements about his educational qualifications and liabilities.
- The appellant indulged in corrupt practices by failing to make required disclosures under the RP Act.
- Non-disclosure amounts to “undue influence” as defined in the RP Act, relying on Lok Prahari vs. Union of India & Others.
- If a “corrupt practice” is alleged under Section 100(1)(b), it is not necessary to state that it materially affected the outcome of the election, relying on Krishnamoorthy vs. Sivakumar and Others.
- There are several triable issues involved in the election petition, and the cause of action has been disclosed.
Submissions Table
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions (Appellant) | Sub-Submissions (Respondent) |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of Material Facts and Full Particulars |
✓ Election petition lacked primary documents and reliable sources. ✓ Pleadings were based on speculation, not material facts. ✓ No complete cause of action was disclosed. ✓ No full particulars of corrupt practices were pleaded. |
✓ Affidavit in Form 26 contained false statements about educational qualifications and liabilities. ✓ Appellant failed to make required disclosures under the RP Act. |
| Improper Acceptance of Nomination |
✓ No written objection was raised during scrutiny by the Returning Officer. ✓ Allegations did not constitute “undue influence” or “corrupt practices”. |
✓ Nomination paper was improperly accepted due to false statements. |
| Corrupt Practices | ✓ Allegations did not constitute “undue influence” or “corrupt practices”. |
✓ Non-disclosure amounts to “undue influence”. ✓ It is not necessary to state that the corrupt practice materially affected the outcome of the election. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the main issues that the Court addressed were:
- Whether the Election Petition contained a concise statement of material facts as required under Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act.
- Whether the Election Petition set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice as required under Section 83(1)(b) of the RP Act.
- Whether the Election Petition contained averments to show that the result of the election was materially affected by the improper acceptance of the nomination of the appellant under Section 100(1)(d)(i) of the RP Act.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the Election Petition contained a concise statement of material facts as required under Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act. | The Court held that the Election Petition lacked a concise statement of material facts. The allegations were vague and without any basis. |
| Whether the Election Petition set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice as required under Section 83(1)(b) of the RP Act. | The Court found that the Election Petition did not provide full particulars of the alleged corrupt practices. It failed to explain how the appellant had interfered with the free exercise of electoral rights. |
| Whether the Election Petition contained averments to show that the result of the election was materially affected by the improper acceptance of the nomination of the appellant under Section 100(1)(d)(i) of the RP Act. | The Court noted that the Election Petition did not contain any averments showing how the result of the election was materially affected by the improper acceptance of the appellant’s nomination. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was Considered |
|---|---|---|
| Kanimozhi Karunanidhi vs. A. Santhana Kumar and Others [2023 SCC Online SC 573] | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon to reiterate the legal position regarding non-compliance of Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act and rejection of Election Petition under Order VII Rule 11, CPC. The Court emphasized that an election petition must contain a concise statement of material facts, and failure to do so warrants dismissal. |
| Lok Prahari vs. Union of India & Others [(2018) 4 SCC 699] | Supreme Court of India | Cited by the respondent to argue that non-disclosure amounts to “undue influence”. The Supreme Court did not accept this argument in the present context, finding that the election petition lacked the necessary material facts. |
| Krishnamoorthy vs. Sivakumar and Others [(2015) 3 SCC 467] | Supreme Court of India | Cited by the respondent to argue that if a “corrupt practice” is alleged under Section 100(1)(b), it is not necessary to state that it materially affected the outcome of the election. The Supreme Court acknowledged this point but emphasized that the petition must still contain full particulars of the corrupt practice. |
| Bhagwati Prasad Dixit ‘Ghorewala’ vs. Rajeev Gandhi [(1986) 4 SCC 78] | Supreme Court of India | Cited to emphasize that if the allegations in the petition do not set out grounds as contemplated by Section 100 and do not conform to the requirement of Section 81 and 83 of the Act, the pleadings are liable to be struck off and the Election Petition is liable to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC. |
| Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal vs. Rajiv Gandhi [(1987) Supp SCC 93] | Supreme Court of India | Cited to emphasize that if the allegations in the petition do not set out grounds as contemplated by Section 100 and do not conform to the requirement of Section 81 and 83 of the Act, the pleadings are liable to be struck off and the Election Petition is liable to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC. |
| Laxmi Narayan Nayak vs. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Others [(1990) 2 SCC 173] | Supreme Court of India | The Court referred to this case to reiterate the principles applicable to election cases involving corrupt practices, emphasizing the need for precise pleadings, clear evidence, and strict scrutiny of allegations. |
| Azhar Hussain vs. Rajiv Gandhi [(1986) Supp. SCC 315] | Supreme Court of India | Cited to reiterate that the omission of a single material fact would lead to incomplete cause of action and that an Election petition without the material facts is not an Election petition at all. |
| Samant N. Balkrishna and Another vs. George Fernandez and Others [(1969) 3 SCC 238] | Supreme Court of India | Cited in Azhar Hussain vs. Rajiv Gandhi to emphasize that the omission of a single material fact would lead to incomplete cause of action. |
| Shri Udhav Singh vs. Madhav Rao Scindia [(1977) 1 SCC 511] | Supreme Court of India | Cited in Azhar Hussain vs. Rajiv Gandhi to emphasize that the omission of a single material fact would lead to incomplete cause of action. |
| Manphul Singh v. Surinder Singh [(1973) 2 SCC 599: (1974) 1 SCR 52] | Supreme Court of India | Cited in Laxmi Narayan Nayak vs. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Others to emphasize that the court is empowered at any stage of the proceedings to strike down or delete pleadings which are suffering from such vices as not raising any triable issue. |
| Kona Prabhakara Rao v. M. Seshagiri Rao [(1982) 1 SCC 442] | Supreme Court of India | Cited in Laxmi Narayan Nayak vs. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Others to emphasize that the pleadings of the election petitioner in his petition should be absolutely precise and clear containing all necessary details and particulars as required by law and that the court is empowered at any stage of the proceedings to strike down or delete pleadings which are suffering from such vices as not raising any triable issue. |
| Jumuna Prasad Mukhariya v. Lachhi Ram [(1955) 1 SCR 608: AIR 1954 SC 686] | Supreme Court of India | Cited in Laxmi Narayan Nayak vs. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Others to emphasize that the evidence adduced in support of the pleadings should be of such nature leading to an irresistible conclusion or unimpeachable result that the allegations made, have been committed rendering the election void under Section 100. |
| Rahim Khan v. Khurshid Ahmed [(1974) 2 SCC 660] | Supreme Court of India | Cited in Laxmi Narayan Nayak vs. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Others to emphasize that the evidence adduced in support of the pleadings should be of such nature leading to an irresistible conclusion or unimpeachable result that the allegations made, have been committed rendering the election void under Section 100 and that it is unsafe in an election case to accept oral evidence at its face value without looking for assurances for some surer circumstances or unimpeachable documents and that the onus of proof of the allegations made in the election petition is undoubtedly on the person who assails an election which has been concluded. |
| Ram Sharan Yadav v. Thakur Muneshwar Nath Singh [(1984) 4 SCC 649] | Supreme Court of India | Cited in Laxmi Narayan Nayak vs. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Others to emphasize that the evidence produced before the court in support of the pleadings must be clear, cogent, satisfactory, credible and positive and also should stand the test of strict and scrupulous scrutiny. |
| M. Narayana Rao v. G. Venkata Reddy [(1977) 1 SCC 771: (1977) 1 SCR 490] | Supreme Court of India | Cited in Laxmi Narayan Nayak vs. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Others to emphasize that it is unsafe in an election case to accept oral evidence at its face value without looking for assurances for some surer circumstances or unimpeachable documents. |
| Lakshmi Raman Acharya v. Chandan Singh [(1977) 1 SCC 423: (1977) 2 SCR 412] | Supreme Court of India | Cited in Laxmi Narayan Nayak vs. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Others to emphasize that it is unsafe in an election case to accept oral evidence at its face value without looking for assurances for some surer circumstances or unimpeachable documents. |
| Ramji Prasad Singh v. Ram Bilas Jha [(1977) 1 SCC 260] | Supreme Court of India | Cited in Laxmi Narayan Nayak vs. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Others to emphasize that it is unsafe in an election case to accept oral evidence at its face value without looking for assurances for some surer circumstances or unimpeachable documents and that the onus of proof of the allegations made in the election petition is undoubtedly on the person who assails an election which has been concluded. |
| Mohan Singh v. Bhanwarlal [(1964) 5 SCR 12: AIR 1964 SC 1366] | Supreme Court of India | Cited in Laxmi Narayan Nayak vs. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Others to emphasize that the onus of proof of the allegations made in the election petition is undoubtedly on the person who assails an election which has been concluded. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellant argued that the election petition lacked material facts and full particulars of corrupt practices. | The Court agreed, stating that the petition contained only bald and vague allegations without a proper basis. The Court held that the petition lacked a concise statement of material facts as required by Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act. |
| Appellant argued that the election petition did not demonstrate how the result of the election was materially affected by the improper acceptance of nomination. | The Court concurred, noting that there was no averment in the petition showing how the result of the election was materially affected by the improper acceptance of the nomination as required by Section 100(1)(d)(i) of the RP Act. |
| Respondent argued that the appellant’s nomination was improperly accepted due to false statements in the affidavit. | The Court found that the respondent had not raised a written objection during the scrutiny of nomination papers and had not made averments in the Election Petition as to how the appellant’s nomination was liable to be rejected. |
| Respondent argued that non-disclosure of information amounted to “undue influence”. | The Court held that the respondent failed to show how the appellant had interfered with the free exercise of any electoral right, which is necessary to constitute “undue influence” under Section 123(2) of the RP Act. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
The Court relied heavily on Kanimozhi Karunanidhi vs. A. Santhana Kumar and Others [2023 SCC Online SC 573]* to emphasize the necessity of a concise statement of material facts in an election petition. The Court distinguished the facts in Lok Prahari vs. Union of India & Others [(2018) 4 SCC 699]*, stating that the present case lacked the required material facts to establish “undue influence”. While acknowledging the respondent’s point from Krishnamoorthy vs. Sivakumar and Others [(2015) 3 SCC 467]* that it is not necessary to state that a corrupt practice materially affected the outcome of the election, the Court clarified that the petition must still contain full particulars of the corrupt practice.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of specific and material facts in the election petition. The Court emphasized that an election petition is a serious matter and cannot be based on vague allegations or speculation. The Court also highlighted the importance of adhering to the statutory requirements of the RP Act, particularly Sections 83 and 100, which mandate precise pleadings and clear evidence of corrupt practices or improper acceptance of nominations.
The Court’s reasoning focused on the following points:
- The election petition did not contain a concise statement of material facts as required by Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act.
- The allegations of corrupt practice were vague and lacked full particulars as required by Section 83(1)(b) of the RP Act.
- The election petition did not demonstrate how the result of the election was materially affected by the improper acceptance of the nomination, as required by Section 100(1)(d)(i) of the RP Act.
- The respondent did not raise a written objection during the scrutiny of nomination papers.
Sentiment Analysis
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Lack of material facts in the election petition | 40% |
| Absence of full particulars of corrupt practices | 30% |
| Failure to demonstrate material effect on election results due to improper acceptance of nomination | 20% |
| Failure to raise written objection during scrutiny | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact (consideration of factual aspects of the case) | 30% |
| Law (consideration of legal aspects) | 70% |
Logical Reasoning
The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that election petitions must adhere strictly to the requirements of the RP Act. The Court rejected the respondent’s arguments, emphasizing that mere allegations are not sufficient. The Court stated, “Now, from the bare reading of the Election petition, it emerges that the respondent no. 1 has made only bald and vague allegations in the Election Petition without stating the material facts in support thereof as required to be stated under Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act.”
The Court further noted, “So far as the allegations of “Corrupt practice” are concerned, the respondent no. 1 was required to make concise statement of material facts as to how the appellant had indulged into “Corrupt practice” of undue influence by directly or indirectly interfering or attempted to interfere with the free exercise of any electoral right.”
The Court also highlighted the deficiency in the petition regarding the impact of improper acceptance of nomination, stating, “there is not a single averment made in the Election Petition as to how the result of the election, in so far as the appellant was concerned, was materially affected by improper acceptance of his nomination, so as to constitute a cause of action under Section 100(1)(d)(i) of the Act.”
Key Takeaways
- Election petitions must contain precise and specific pleadings, including material facts and full particulars of alleged corrupt practices.
- Vague and unsubstantiated allegations are not sufficient to sustain an election petition.
- Election petitions must demonstrate how the result of the election was materially affected by any improper acceptance of nomination.
- The standard of proof for establishing a charge of “Corrupt practice” is the same as is applicable to a criminal charge.
- Failure to comply with the requirements of Section 83 of the RP Act can lead to the dismissal of the election petition under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.
Directions
The Supreme Court did not give any specific directions in this judgment. The Court simply dismissed the election petition.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that an election petition that does not contain a concise statement of material facts, full particulars of corrupt practices, and does not demonstrate how the result of the election was materially affected by the improper acceptance of a nomination, is liable to be dismissed. This case reinforces the existing legal position that election petitions must strictly adhere to the statutory requirements of the RP Act.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s decision and dismissing the election petition. The Court emphasized that election petitions must adhere strictly to the statutory requirements of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and must contain specific and material facts, not vague allegations. This judgment reinforces the importance of precise pleadings in election disputes and the need to demonstrate a clear cause of action.