Case Note & Summary
The case arises from an Election Petition filed by the first respondent under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, challenging the election of the appellant from the 134-Aravakurichi Assembly Constituency. Polling was held on 19 November 2016 and the result declared on 22 November 2016, with the appellant securing 88,068 votes, the 6th respondent 64,407 votes, and the first respondent only 82 votes. The Election Petition raised two grounds: improper acceptance of nomination papers of the appellant and the 6th respondent, and corrupt practices allegedly indulged in by the appellant's agent and others with his consent. The appellant filed an application under Order VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to strike out paragraphs 3 to 9 of the Election Petition on the ground that they were vague and did not disclose material facts or particulars of the corrupt practice, and also sought rejection of the petition for non-disclosure of cause of action. A similar application was filed by the 6th respondent. The learned Judge of the Madras High Court rejected the applications, observing that the first respondent had forwarded copies of a compact disc, photographs, etc. to the Returning Officer, and directed the first respondent to file all relevant documents. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, holding that the allegations in paragraphs 3 to 9 were vague and did not disclose material facts as required under Section 83 of the RP Act, 1951, and therefore the Election Petition did not disclose a cause of action. The Court struck out those paragraphs and rejected the Election Petition.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Corrupt Practice - Material Facts - Section 83, Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Order VI Rule 16, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The Election Petition alleged corrupt practice but failed to disclose material facts and particulars. The Court held that vague allegations without specific details of corrupt practice do not constitute a cause of action and are liable to be struck out. (Paras 1-3) B) Civil Procedure - Striking Out Pleadings - Order VI Rule 16, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The Court held that Order VI Rule 16 CPC applies to election petitions. Where an election petition does not disclose a cause of action or contains vague allegations, the court may strike out such pleadings. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Election Petition filed by the first respondent discloses a cause of action and material facts regarding the allegation of corrupt practice, and whether paragraphs 3 to 9 of the Election Petition deserve to be struck out under Order VI Rule 16 CPC.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned judgment of the Madras High Court, struck out paragraphs 3 to 9 of the Election Petition, and rejected the Election Petition for non-disclosure of cause of action.
Law Points
- Election petition must disclose cause of action
- Allegations of corrupt practice must contain material facts and particulars
- Order VI Rule 16 CPC applies to election petitions
- Section 83 RP Act 1951 requires concise statement of material facts
