Supreme Court Upholds Election: Kanimozhi Karunanidhi’s Election Not Voided (2023)

Date of the Judgment: 04 May 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 499

Judges: Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi

Can an election be invalidated because a candidate did not provide specific income tax details of their spouse in their election affidavit? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, focusing on the necessity of material facts in an election petition. The court examined whether the alleged non-disclosure of a spouse’s income tax information was a sufficient ground to declare an election void. The bench comprised Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi, with the judgment authored by Justice Bela M. Trivedi.

Case Background

The case revolves around the election of Kanimozhi Karunanidhi (the appellant) from the No. 36-Thoothukudy Lok Sabha Constituency in the 2019 general elections. A. Santhana Kumar (respondent no. 1), an elector, filed an election petition challenging the validity of her election. The core of the challenge was that Kanimozhi allegedly failed to disclose her spouse’s income tax details in the affidavit (Form 26) submitted with her nomination papers. The election petitioner contended that this non-disclosure violated the guidelines of the Election Commission of India and suppressed crucial information from the voters, thereby materially affecting the election results.

The appellant, Kanimozhi Karunanidhi, was declared elected on May 23, 2019, with a significant margin of 3,47,209 votes. The election petitioner, A. Santhana Kumar, claimed that the returned candidate failed to provide details of her spouse’s income tax payments, specifically his PAN number, the last financial year of filing the Income Tax Return, and the total income shown in the income tax return for the past five financial years. The petitioner argued that this omission deprived the electors of essential information, thereby affecting the election’s outcome.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Election Petitioner filed Election Petition No. 3/2019 before the High Court of Judicature at Madras, seeking to declare the election of the returned candidate void. The appellant, Kanimozhi Karunanidhi, filed two Original Applications (OAs) in the High Court. OA No. 929/2019 sought to strike off paragraphs 5 to 17 of the Election Petition, and OA No. 930/2019 sought to reject the Election Petition in limine. The High Court dismissed both OAs filed by the appellant, leading to the present appeals before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The judgment refers to several key legal provisions:

• Article 324 of the Constitution of India: This article vests the superintendence, direction, and control of elections in the Election Commission.
• Section 80 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RP Act): States that no election shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with the provisions of Part-VI of the Act.
• Section 80A of the RP Act: Confers jurisdiction on the High Court to try election petitions.
• Section 81 of the RP Act: Specifies who can present an election petition and within what time frame. It states that an election petition can be filed by a candidate or an elector within forty-five days from the date of election of the returned candidate.
• Section 83 of the RP Act: Deals with the contents of an election petition. It mandates that the petition must contain a concise statement of material facts on which the petitioner relies.
  
  “83. Contents of petition – (1) An election petition— (a) shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies;”
• Section 86 of the RP Act: Empowers the High Court to dismiss an election petition that does not comply with the provisions of Section 81, 82, or 117 of the Act.
• Section 87 of the RP Act: Outlines the procedure to be followed by the High Court, stating that it should follow the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).
• Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the RP Act: Specifies the grounds for declaring an election void, including non-compliance with the Constitution, the RP Act, or any rules or orders made under the Act, if such non-compliance materially affects the election results.
  
  “100. Grounds for declaring election to be void. – (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) if the High Court is of opinion- (d)that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a returned candidate, has been materially affected- (iv) by any non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or of this Act or of any rules or orders made under this Act, the High Court shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void.”
• Rule 4A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961: Requires the candidate to submit an affidavit in Form 26 along with the nomination paper.
• Section 33 of the RP Act: Pertains to the presentation of nomination paper and the requirements for a valid nomination.
• Section 36 of the RP Act: Pertains to the scrutiny of nominations by the Returning Officer. Sub-section(2) empowers the Returning Officer to reject any nomination on the grounds mentioned therein.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Kanimozhi Karunanidhi):

• The election petition lacks material facts, making it liable for dismissal. The appellant argued that the election petition did not specify which facts were suppressed and how the non-compliance with the Constitution or the RP Act materially affected the election results.
• The appellant relied on Ram Sukh vs. Dinesh Aggarwal [2009 (10) SCC 541] and Hari Shanker Jain vs. Sonia Gandhi [2001 (8) SCC 233], arguing that material facts include both positive and negative averments.
• The appellant cited Samant N. Balkrishna & Anr. vs. George Fernandez & Ors. [1969 (3) SCC 238], stating that failure to plead even a single material fact leads to an incomplete cause of action.
• The appellant contended that if columns in Form 26 are not applicable to a candidate, it does not amount to suppression of facts.

Respondent’s Arguments (A. Santhana Kumar):

• The respondent argued that the appellant violated the law laid down in Union of India vs. Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. [2002 (5) SCC 294], which mandates disclosure of assets and liabilities of candidates and their family members.
• The respondent contended that the appellant failed to disclose the status of filing of income tax return of her spouse in a foreign country, which was required in Form 26.
• The respondent argued that the appellant’s failure to disclose her spouse’s income tax details deprived voters of the opportunity to make informed decisions.
• The respondent submitted that the lack of transparency and non-disclosure of facts in Form 26 materially affected the election results.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue the Court addressed was:

1. Whether the election petition contained sufficient material facts as required under Section 83(1)(a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, to warrant a trial on the grounds of non-compliance under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

1. N.P. Ponnuswami vs. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency & Ors. [1952 (1) SCC 94]: This case was cited to establish that the right to elect and the right to dispute an election are statutory rights and are subject to statutory limitations.
2. Jagan Nath vs. Jaswant Singh & Ors. [AIR 1954 SC 210]: This case was cited to emphasize that an election petition is a special jurisdiction to be exercised in accordance with the statute creating it.
3. Bhikji Keshao Joshi & Anr. vs. Brijlal Nandlal Biyani & Ors. [AIR 1955 SC 610]: This case was cited to reinforce the principle that election law is a self-contained code.
4. Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar vs. Roop Singh Rathore & Ors. [AIR 1964 SC 1545]: This case was cited to support the view that election matters are regulated by the Representation of People Act, 1951.
5. Union of India v/s Association for Democratic Reforms and Another [2002 (5) SCC 294]: This case was cited to highlight the importance of transparency in elections and the right of voters to know the particulars of candidates. The Court also discussed the powers of the Election Commission under Article 324 of the Constitution.
6. Samant N. Balkrishna & Anr. vs. George Fernandez & Ors. [1969 (3) SCC 238]: This case was cited to emphasize that an election petition must contain a concise statement of material facts and that the omission of even a single material fact leads to an incomplete cause of action.
7. Hari Shanker Jain vs. Sonia Gandhi [2001 (8) SCC 233]: This case was cited to reiterate that material facts must be pleaded clearly and that vague averments are insufficient.
8. Mahadeorao Sukaji Shivankar vs. Ramaratan Bapu & Ors. [2004 (7) SCC 181]: This case was cited to clarify the distinction between “material facts” and “particulars,” stating that material facts are the primary facts that must be pleaded.
9. Anil Vasudev Salgaonkar vs. Naresh Kushali Shigaonkar [2009 (9) SCC 310]: This case was cited to establish that an election petition can be summarily dismissed if it does not furnish a cause of action.
10. Ram Sukh vs. Dinesh Aggarwal [2009 (10) SCC 541]: This case was cited to emphasize the necessity of averring specifically how the result of the election was materially affected due to non-compliance with the law.
11. Hardwari Lal v. Kanwal Singh [(1972) 1 SCC 214]: This case was cited to negate the plea that an election petition cannot be dismissed for want of material facts because Section 83 does not find place in Section 86 of the Act.
12. Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi [1986 Supp SCC 315]: This case was cited to reiterate that all facts essential to clothe the petition with a complete cause of action must be pleaded.

Authorities Table

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court’s judgment and dismissing the election petition. The Court held that the election petition lacked material facts as required under Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act. The Court emphasized that the election petitioner failed to specify how the alleged non-disclosure of the spouse’s income tax details materially affected the election results. The Court noted that the appellant had declared that her spouse was a foreign citizen and that the information on income tax returns was “not applicable”. The Court stated that it was obligatory on the part of the Election Petitioner to state the Permanent Account Number of the spouse of the returned candidate in India which was suppressed by her and how the other details furnished about her husband in the said Form No. 26 were incomplete or false.

The Supreme Court observed that mere bald allegations without stating the material facts are not sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The Court also noted that the Returning Officer did not find any lapse or non-compliance of Section 33 or Rule 4A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, at the time of scrutiny of the nomination paper. The Court held that the election petition did not meet the requirements of Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act, and therefore, it was liable to be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC.

Treatment of Submissions and Authorities

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Samant N. Balkrishna [1969 (3) SCC 238]* and Hari Shanker Jain [2001 (8) SCC 233]* to emphasize the importance of stating material facts in the election petition. The Court reiterated that the omission of a single material fact leads to an incomplete cause of action.
• The Court followed Ram Sukh [2009 (10) SCC 541]* to emphasize that the election petitioner must specifically aver how the result of the election was materially affected due to non-compliance with the law.
• The Court cited Union of India v/s Association for Democratic Reforms [2002 (5) SCC 294]* to acknowledge the importance of transparency in elections but clarified that this did not negate the requirement for material facts in an election petition.
• The Court used Hardwari Lal v. Kanwal Singh [(1972) 1 SCC 214]* and Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi [1986 Supp SCC 315]* to reinforce the position that an election petition can be dismissed at the threshold if it lacks material facts, even if Section 83 is not mentioned in Section 86 of the Act.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of specific material facts in the election petition. The Court emphasized that an election petition must clearly state how the alleged non-compliance with the law materially affected the election results. The Court was not convinced by the vague allegations made by the respondent. The Court also considered that the appellant had filled all the columns of Form No. 26 by furnishing the information with regard to her Permanent Account Number and status of filing of income tax return etc. and of her husband wherever applicable.

The Court’s reasoning focused on the procedural and legal requirements for an election petition, rather than the substantive issue of whether the candidate had actually suppressed information. The Court prioritized adherence to the statutory requirements of stating material facts, which it found lacking in the election petition.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

The court considered alternative interpretations of the facts and legal provisions but ultimately rejected them. The court emphasized that the election petition must contain material facts, and the absence of such facts cannot be cured by evidence. The court also rejected the argument that the non-disclosure of the spouse’s income tax details was a material non-compliance that affected the election results. The court noted that the appellant had filled in all the columns of Form No. 26 and that the Returning Officer did not find any lapse or non-compliance of Section 33 or Rule 4A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, at the time of scrutiny of the nomination paper. The court ultimately concluded that the election petition did not meet the requirements of Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act and was therefore liable to be dismissed.

The court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The election petition did not contain a concise statement of material facts as required by Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act.
• The election petition failed to specify how the alleged non-disclosure of the spouse’s income tax details materially affected the election results.
• The appellant had stated that her spouse was a foreign citizen and that the information on income tax returns was “not applicable” in the relevant columns of Form 26.
• The Returning Officer did not find any lapse or non-compliance of Section 33 or Rule 4A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, at the time of scrutiny of the nomination paper.
• The election petition did not meet the requirements of Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act, and therefore, it was liable to be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC.

“The material facts which are primary and basic facts have to be pleaded by the Election petitioner in support of the case set up by him to show his cause of action and omission of a single material fact would lead to an incomplete cause of action, entitling the returned candidate to pray for dismissal of Election petition under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC read with Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act.”

“In absence of material facts constituting cause of action for filing Election petition under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the said Act, the Election petition is required to be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC read with Section 13(1)(a) of the RP Act.”

“So far as the present petition is concerned, there is no averment made as to how there was non-compliance with provisions of the Constitution or of RP Act or of the Rules or Order made thereunder and as to how such non-compliance had materially affected the result of the election, so as to attract the ground under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the RP Act, for declaring the election to be void.”

Key Takeaways

• An election petition must contain a concise statement of material facts. Vague allegations are not sufficient.
• It is not enough to allege non-compliance with the law. The petitioner must specifically state how the non-compliance materially affected the election results.
• If a column in Form 26 is not applicable to a candidate, it does not amount to suppression of facts.
• Election petitions can be dismissed at the threshold if they do not meet the requirements of Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that an election petition must contain a concise statement of material facts, and the omission of even a single material fact leads to an incomplete cause of action, making the petition liable to be dismissed. The judgment reinforces the established legal position that election petitions must adhere strictly to the procedural and legal requirements outlined in the Representation of the People Act, 1951. There is no change in the previous position of law; the judgment reiterates and applies existing legal principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by Kanimozhi Karunanidhi, setting aside the High Court’s judgment and dismissing the election petition filed by A. Santhana Kumar. The court held that the election petition lacked the necessary material facts and failed to demonstrate how the alleged non-disclosure of the spouse’s income tax details materially affected the election results. The judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to the procedural requirements of stating material facts in election petitions and reinforces the principle that vague allegations are insufficientand that an election petition can be dismissed at the threshold if it fails to meet the requirements of Section 83(1)(a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.