Supreme Court Upholds Striking of Prayer for Declaring Election Petitioner as Duly Elected: Muniraju Gowda vs. Munirathna (2020)

Date of the Judgment: 13 October 2020

Citation: (2020) INSC 755

Judges: S.A. Bobde, CJI, A.S. Bopanna, J., V. Ramasubramanian, J.

Can an election petitioner be declared the winner when the elected candidate is later disqualified, especially when there were multiple candidates in the election? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the Karnataka State Legislative Assembly elections. The core issue revolved around whether the High Court was correct in striking out a prayer in an election petition seeking to declare the petitioner as duly elected, in light of the disqualification of the returned candidate and the presence of multiple other candidates. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice S.A. Bobde and Justices A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian, with the opinion authored by Justice V. Ramasubramanian.

Case Background

In the 2018 Karnataka State Legislative Assembly elections, the first respondent was declared the winner from Rajarajeshwari Nagar Constituency No. 154. The petitioner, an opposing candidate, filed an election petition before the High Court of Karnataka on 13 July 2018, challenging the election. The first respondent filed applications to strike out portions of the petition and to reject it for lack of substance. The petitioner filed applications to amend the petition and produce additional documents. The High Court partly allowed the petitioner’s amendment application but struck out a key prayer seeking to declare the petitioner as duly elected. This led to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The first respondent filed three interlocutory applications (I.A. Nos. 2, 3, and 4 of 2019) seeking to strike out pleadings, reject the election petition, and strike out prayer (c) of the election petition. The petitioner filed two interlocutory applications (I.A. Nos. 1 and 4 of 2020) seeking amendment of the election petition and leave to produce documents. The High Court partly allowed the petitioner’s application for amendment, fully allowed the application to produce documents, rejected the first respondent’s applications to strike out pleadings and reject the petition, but allowed the application to strike out prayer (c) in the election petition. Aggrieved by the partial disallowance of his amendment application and the striking out of prayer (c), the petitioner filed the present Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case is governed primarily by the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Key provisions include:

• Section 83(1)(a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951: This section mandates that an election petition must contain a concise statement of material facts. The court noted, “Under Section 83(1)(a) of the Act, an election petition should contain a concise statement of material facts.”
• Section 100(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951: This section outlines the grounds on which an election can be declared void. The court observed, “Several grounds are enumerated in Section 100(1) of the Act and pleading of material facts co-relatable to the grounds set out in Section 100(1), forms the bedrock of an election petition.”
• Section 101 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951: This section specifies the conditions under which a petitioner can be declared elected, stating:

  “101. Grounds for which a candidate other than the returned candidate may be declared to have been elected. If the High Court is of opinion,—
  (a) that in fact the returned candidate has not been duly elected by a majority of valid votes, or
  (b) that but for the votes obtained by the returned candidate by corrupt practices the petitioner would have obtained a majority of the valid votes,
  the High Court shall, after declaring the election of the returned candidate to be void, declare the petitioner to have been duly elected.”

Arguments

Petitioner’s Arguments:

• The petitioner argued that despite the first respondent’s disqualification, the election petition should proceed, particularly concerning prayer (b) which sought a declaration that the first respondent’s election was void due to corrupt practices.
• The petitioner contended that if successful on prayer (b), they would be entitled to press for relief under prayer (c), seeking to be declared duly elected.
• The petitioner submitted that the High Court erred in not allowing the amendment to include the necessary pleadings under Section 101(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The first respondent argued that the election petition lacked the necessary material facts to support prayer (c), particularly concerning the requirements of Section 101 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
• The first respondent contended that the petitioner’s attempt to amend the petition to include the requirements of Section 101 was made too late and was barred by limitation.
• The first respondent argued that the petitioner could not be declared elected because there were 14 candidates in the election, not just two.

[TABLE] of Submissions:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in striking out prayer (c) of the election petition.
2. Whether the High Court was correct in partially disallowing the amendment application (I.A. No. 1 of 2020) filed by the election petitioner.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Case Laws:

• Viswanath Reddy vs. Konappa Rudrappa Nadgouda [AIR 1969 SC 604] (Supreme Court of India): The court discussed this case in the context of whether votes polled in favor of a disqualified candidate can be considered “thrown away” votes. The court stated, “In Viswanath Reddy vs. Konappa Rudrappa Nadgouda, the Constitution Bench of this Court treated the votes polled in favour of the returned candidate as thrown away votes, on the ground that he was disqualified from contesting and that the election petitioner was entitled to be declared elected, in view of the fact that there was no other contesting candidate.”
• Thiru John vs. Returning Officer & Others [(1977) 3 SCC 540] (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited to highlight the difficulty in determining how voters would have voted if they knew a candidate was disqualified. The court noted, “Though this case concerned election to the Rajya Sabha through single transferable votes, this Court observed in this case that it would be extremely difficult if not impossible, to predicate what the voting pattern would have been, if the electors knew at the time of election that one was disqualified.”
• D.K. Sharma vs. Ram Sharan Yadav and Others [(1993) Supp. (2) SCC 117] (Supreme Court of India): This case reiterated the principle that the rule of excluding votes of a disqualified candidate applies only when there are two candidates. The court observed, “In D.K. Sharma vs. Ram Sharan Yadav and Others, this Court followed the dictum in Vishwanatha Reddy to the effect that where there are more than two candidates in the field, it is not possible to apply the same ratio as could be applied when there are only two candidates.”
• Prakash Khandre vs. Dr. Vijay Kumar Khandre and Others [(2002) 5 SCC 568] (Supreme Court of India): This case further emphasized that when multiple candidates are in the fray, it is impossible to predict how voters would have voted if one candidate was disqualified. The court pointed out, “in the present case, for one seat, there were five candidates and it would be impossible to predict or guess in whose favour the voters would have voted if they were aware that the elected candidate was disqualified to contest election or if he was not permitted to contest the election by rejecting his nomination paper on the ground of disqualification to contest the election and what would have been the voting pattern.”

Legal Provisions:

• Section 83(1)(a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951: This section requires an election petition to contain a concise statement of material facts.
• Section 100(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951: This section outlines the grounds for declaring an election void.
• Section 101 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951: This section specifies the conditions under which a petitioner can be declared elected instead of the returned candidate.

[TABLE] of Authorities:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court followed the ratio in Viswanath Reddy vs. Konappa Rudrappa Nadgouda [AIR 1969 SC 604]*, stating that the rule of excluding votes of a disqualified candidate applies only when there are two candidates.
• The Supreme Court relied on Thiru John vs. Returning Officer & Others [(1977) 3 SCC 540]* to emphasize the difficulty in determining how voters would have behaved if they knew of the disqualification.
• The Supreme Court reiterated the principle in D.K. Sharma vs. Ram Sharan Yadav and Others [(1993) Supp. (2) SCC 117]* that the rule of excluding votes of a disqualified candidate is inapplicable when there are more than two candidates.
• The Supreme Court followed Prakash Khandre vs. Dr. Vijay Kumar Khandre and Others [(2002) 5 SCC 568]* to emphasize that it is impossible to predict the voting pattern in a multi-candidate election if one candidate is disqualified.
• The Supreme Court used Section 83(1)(a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 to highlight the requirement of material facts in an election petition.
• The Supreme Court referred to Section 100(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 to explain the grounds for declaring an election void.
• The Supreme Court referred to Section 101 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 to explain the conditions for declaring a petitioner elected.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of material facts in the election petition to support the claim under Section 101 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and the presence of multiple candidates in the election. The Court emphasized that the election petitioner did not adequately plead the necessary facts to show that he would have won had the returned candidate not engaged in corrupt practices, or that he secured a majority of the valid votes. The Court also highlighted that the amendment application to include these facts was filed too late, after 18 months of the filing of the election petition, and was thus barred by limitation. The Court further relied on the principle that the rule of excluding votes of a disqualified candidate only applies when there are two candidates in the fray, and not when there are multiple candidates. The Court’s reasoning was thus driven by the principles of election law and the need for proper pleadings and timely action in election petitions.

[TABLE] of Sentiment Analysis of Reasons:

Fact:Law Ratio:

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered the alternative interpretation that the petitioner could be declared elected if the returned candidate’s election was void due to corrupt practices. However, this interpretation was rejected because the election petition lacked the necessary pleadings under Section 101 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The court also rejected the argument that the petitioner could be declared elected because there were multiple candidates in the fray, making it impossible to determine how voters would have voted if the returned candidate was disqualified. The court concluded that the High Court was correct in striking down prayer (c) and in partially disallowing the amendment application.

The decision was reached based on the principles of election law, which require a petitioner to plead material facts to support their claim and to act in a timely manner. The court also relied on precedents that clarified that the rule of excluding votes of a disqualified candidate applies only when there are two candidates.

The court stated, “Once it is found that neither the original election petition nor the amended election petition contains any pleading of material facts which would enable the High Court to form an opinion in terms of Section 101, there was no alternative for the High Court but to strike off prayer (c).” The court also noted, “In any case, the second part of paragraph 30 (a) sought to be incorporated by way of amendment, does not satisfy the requirement of pleading of material facts, necessary for the High Court to form an opinion in terms of Clause (a) or (b) of Section 101.” Further, the court observed, “Therefore, apart from the fact that in the election petition, there were no pleadings of material facts co-relatable to the ingredients of clause (a) or (b) of Section 101 of the Act, to sustain prayer (c), even legally the High Court could not have granted prayer (c) in view of the fact that there were 14 candidates in the fray.”

Key Takeaways

• Material Facts are Crucial: An election petition must contain a concise statement of material facts to support the grounds on which the election is challenged.
• Timely Amendments: Amendments to election petitions must be made promptly. Delay in seeking amendments can be fatal.
• Multi-Candidate Elections: In elections with more than two candidates, the rule of excluding votes of a disqualified candidate and declaring the next highest candidate as elected does not apply.
• Section 101 Requirements: To be declared elected, an election petitioner must satisfy the requirements of Section 101 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

The judgment has potential implications for future election petitions, emphasizing the need for proper pleadings and timely action. It clarifies that the rule of excluding votes of a disqualified candidate is not applicable in multi-candidate elections, which may affect the outcome of future election disputes.

Directions

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

Specific Amendments Analysis

The judgment does not discuss any specific amendments to the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The discussion revolves around the amendment sought by the petitioner to include pleadings under Section 101 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, in the election petition, which was partially disallowed by the High Court and upheld by the Supreme Court.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in an election petition, the petitioner cannot be declared elected in place of a disqualified returned candidate if the election petition lacks the necessary material facts to support such a declaration, and if there were multiple candidates in the election. This judgment reinforces the principle that the rule of excluding votes of a disqualified candidate only applies in two-candidate elections. This judgment clarifies that the election petitioner must satisfy the conditions under Section 101 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, to be declared elected, and that the rule of excluding votes of a disqualified candidate does not apply in multi-candidate elections.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions, upholding the High Court’s decision to strike out prayer (c) of the election petition and partially disallowing the amendment application. The Court held that the election petition lacked the necessary material facts to support the claim for declaring the petitioner as duly elected, and that the rule of excluding votes of a disqualified candidate does not apply in multi-candidate elections. The judgment emphasizes the need for proper pleadings, timely action, and adherence to the principles of election law.

Category

Parent Category: Election Law

Child Categories:

• Representation of the People Act, 1951
• Section 83, Representation of the People Act, 1951
• Section 100, Representation of the People Act, 1951
• Section 101, Representation of the People Act, 1951
• Election Petition
• Disqualification of Candidate
• Corrupt Practices
• Material Facts
• Amendment of Pleadings
• Multi-Candidate Election

FAQ

Q: What is an election petition?

A: An election petition is a formal legal challenge to the outcome of an election. It is filed by a candidate who believes that the electionwas not conducted fairly or legally.

Q: What are material facts in an election petition?

A: Material facts are the essential details that support the grounds on which an election is challenged. They must be stated clearly and concisely in the election petition.

Q: What does Section 101 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, say?

A: Section 101 specifies the conditions under which a petitioner can be declared elected instead of the returned candidate. This can happen if the court finds that the returned candidate was not duly elected or that the petitioner would have won but for corrupt practices.

Q: Can an election petitioner be declared elected if the winner is disqualified?

A: It depends. If there are only two candidates, and the winner is disqualified, the petitioner can be declared elected. However, in multi-candidate elections, this is generally not possible.

Q: Why couldn’t the petitioner be declared elected in this case?

A: The petitioner could not be declared elected because the election petition lacked the necessary material facts to support such a declaration, and there were multiple candidates in the election.

Q: What does it mean to “strike out” a prayer in an election petition?

A: To strike out a prayer means that the court removes that specific request from the petition. In this case, the prayer to declare the petitioner elected was removed.

Q: Why was the amendment application rejected?

A: The amendment application was rejected because it was filed too late, after 18 months of filing the election petition, and was thus barred by limitation.

Q: What is the significance of this judgment?

A: This judgment clarifies that election petitions must contain proper pleadings and that the rule of excluding votes of a disqualified candidate does not apply in multi-candidate elections. It emphasizes the need for timely action in election disputes.