Supreme Court Upholds Election Petition: Challenge to Non-Disclosure of Assets in Manipur Assembly Elections (2024)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 13 September 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 689

Judges: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah

Can an election petition be dismissed right at the beginning if it doesn’t perfectly follow all the rules about how to present the case? The Supreme Court of India recently looked into this question in a case concerning the election of a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) in Manipur. The core issue was whether the High Court was right to refuse to dismiss an election petition that alleged the MLA had not properly disclosed her assets and had engaged in corrupt practices. This judgment clarifies the extent to which election petitions must strictly adhere to the procedural requirements of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The judgment was authored by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, with Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah concurring.

Case Background

The appellant, Kimneo Haokip Hangshing, was elected as an MLA from the 46-Saikul Assembly Constituency in the 12th General Elections to the Manipur Legislative Assembly in 2022. The respondent, Kenn Raikhan, who also contested from the same seat, filed an Election Petition before the High Court of Manipur. The respondent alleged that the appellant had not disclosed her assets in her nomination papers and had engaged in “corrupt practices” during the election. Specifically, the respondent claimed that the appellant had concealed investments of approximately Rs. 2 crores in land development and had falsely declared her income for the Financial Year 2021-22 as zero, despite having been employed as a Committee Officer in the Manipur Legislative Assembly Secretariat until December 31, 2021.

The appellant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, read with Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, seeking the rejection of the election petition. The appellant argued that the petition did not disclose a cause of action because it did not specify any corrupt practices or provide sufficient details of the alleged concealment of income/assets, thus not complying with Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Manipur dismissed the appellant’s application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court held that the issues raised in the election petition, such as whether the appellant had any income, whether she had made a false declaration in her nomination papers, and whether she had concealed her assets, required a trial where evidence would be led by the parties and examined by the Court. The High Court concluded that the petition could not be dismissed at the preliminary stage. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA), which specifies the requirements for an election petition. Section 83(1) of the RPA states:

“(1) An election petition —
(a) shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies;
(b) shall set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice that the petitioner alleges, including as full a statement as possible of the names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practice and the date and place of the commission of each such practice; and
(c) shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) for the verification of pleadings:
Provided that where the petitioner alleges any corrupt practice, the petition shall also be accompanied by an affidavit in the prescribed form in support of the allegation of such corrupt practice and the particulars thereof.”

The proviso to Section 83(1)(c) requires that an election petition alleging corrupt practices must be accompanied by an affidavit in the prescribed form. This affidavit is to be given in Form 25 as per Rule 94A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, which reads:

“94A. Form of affidavit to be filed with election petition. — The affidavit referred to in the proviso to subsection (1) of section 83 shall be sworn before a magistrate of the first class or a notary or a commissioner of oaths and shall be in Form 25.”

The relevant portion of Form 25 states that the petitioner must affirm that the statements made in the petition about the commission of corrupt practices are true to their knowledge or information.

Arguments

The appellant argued that the election petition should be dismissed at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, because it did not comply with Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Specifically, the appellant contended that the petition lacked specific details of corrupt practices and did not provide sufficient particulars regarding the alleged concealment of income and assets. The appellant asserted that the requirements of Section 83 should be strictly construed, and any deviation should result in the dismissal of the petition.

The respondent argued that the petition disclosed a cause of action by alleging that the appellant had concealed her investments and income, leading to the improper acceptance of her nomination papers. The respondent contended that the petition substantially complied with the requirements of Section 83, and the issues raised required a trial to determine the truth of the allegations.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in dismissing the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the election petition.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ G.M. Siddeshwar v. Prasanna Kumar (2013) 4 SCC 776*: The Supreme Court relied on this case to emphasize that an election petition should not be dismissed at the threshold if there is substantial compliance with the requirements of the law, even if an affidavit is not filed in terms of the proviso.

✓ Thangjam Arunkumar v. Yumkham Erabot Singh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1058*: The Supreme Court cited this case to reiterate that the requirement to file an affidavit under the proviso to Section 83(1)(c) is not mandatory, and substantial compliance is sufficient. The Court also noted that any defect in the affidavit is curable.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle of “substantial compliance” with the requirements of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The Court emphasized that election petitions should not be dismissed at the threshold if there is a reasonable indication of a cause of action and a general adherence to the procedural rules, even if there are minor defects. The Court also considered the need for a trial to determine the truth of the allegations, especially when they involve the concealment of assets and income by a candidate.

Fact:Law Ratio

The court’s decision was influenced more by the factual aspects of the case, specifically the allegations of concealment of assets and income, which required a trial to determine their truth. The legal aspects, while important, were secondary to the factual inquiry.

The Supreme Court emphasized that an election petition should not be rejected at the very beginning where there is a “substantial compliance” of the provisions.

The Court observed that on a perusal of the petition as a whole, including the averments, it is clear that a cause of action has been disclosed by the respondent.

The Court noted that whether the appellant has concealed her investments and her income, and thus her nomination has been improperly accepted, is a triable issue.

The Court also stated that if substantial compliance in terms of furnishing all that is required under the law has been given, the petition cannot be summarily dismissed.

The Court held that “the requirement to file an affidavit under the proviso to Section 83(1)(c) is not mandatory. It is sufficient if there is substantial compliance. As the defect is curable, an opportunity may be granted to file the necessary affidavit.”

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Election petitions should not be dismissed at the threshold if there is substantial compliance with the requirements of Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
• ✓ Minor defects in an election petition, such as the absence of a mandatory affidavit, can be cured by granting an opportunity to file the necessary affidavit.
• ✓ Allegations of concealment of assets and income by a candidate are triable issues that require a full trial.
• ✓ Courts should not reject election petitions summarily if there is a reasonable indication of a cause of action.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not give any specific directions other than dismissing the appeal and vacating any interim orders.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an election petition should not be dismissed at the threshold if there is substantial compliance with the requirements of Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The judgment reinforces the principle that minor procedural defects should not prevent a full trial on the merits of the case, especially when serious allegations of corruption and non-disclosure of assets are involved. This case does not introduce a new position of law but rather reaffirms the existing position.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision that the election petition could not be dismissed at the threshold. The Court emphasized that substantial compliance with the requirements of Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, is sufficient and that minor defects can be cured. The Court also reiterated that allegations of concealment of assets and income are triable issues that require a full trial. This judgment reinforces the importance of ensuring that election petitions are not dismissed summarily, especially when serious allegations of corruption are involved.