Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court heard two civil appeals by special leave arising from an election petition filed by the appellant challenging the election of the first respondent to the Lok Sabha from Rae Bareilly constituency in March 1971 on the ground of corrupt practice under Section 123(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The appellant alleged that the respondent obtained and procured the assistance of Yashpal Kapur, a Gazetted Officer in the Government of India, for the furtherance of her election prospects while he was still in service. After pleadings were completed and issues framed, the appellant sought leave under Order XI of the Code of Civil Procedure to deliver interrogatories; Broome J. allowed this application. The respondent then filed an application under Order XI Rule 7 CPC to set aside the interrogatories as unreasonable and irrelevant, contending that the election petition lacked material facts to support the corrupt practice issues. The trial judge accepted this argument, set aside some interrogatories, and struck out Issues 1 to 3. The appellant then applied to amend the election petition to supply better particulars, but the trial court rejected it on the ground that the amendment sought to add material facts after the limitation period. Civil Appeal No. 108 of 1972 challenged the order setting aside interrogatories and striking out issues; Civil Appeal No. 109 of 1972 challenged the rejection of the amendment application. Issue No. 2 was not pressed; the Court recast Issue No. 1 to focus on whether respondent No. 1 obtained and procured the assistance of Yashpal Kapur while he was still a gazetted officer. The Supreme Court examined Sections 123(7), 79(b), and 86(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and Order XI Rule 1 CPC. The Court held that while corrupt practice must be strictly proved, election petition pleadings should not be strictly construed; the object of Section 86(5) is to give precise notice of the charge. The allegations in the petition, though lacking better particulars such as dates of candidacy and entrustment, disclosed all ingredients of the corrupt practice, so the trial court erred in striking out the issues. The Court further ruled that amendments to supply better particulars of an already alleged corrupt practice are permissible even after limitation, but introducing a new corrupt practice is not. The trial court's refusal of amendment was therefore wrong. On interrogatories, the Court held that interrogatories must have a reasonable close connection with matters in question, and questions merely relevant for cross-examination are not necessarily proper; the trial court rightly struck them out. The Supreme Court allowed both appeals in part, set aside the trial court's orders striking out the issues and rejecting amendment, restored the recast Issue No. 1, permitted the amendment, and upheld the order setting aside the interrogatories.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Pleadings in Election Petition - Standard of Pleading for Corrupt Practice - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Section 86(5) - While corrupt practice must be strictly proved, pleading in an election petition should not receive a strict construction; the object of Section 86(5) is to give the accused precise knowledge of the charge so that he may meet it; if the accusation is nebulous or fails to make out a corrupt practice, the charge fails at the threshold, but if the charge is beyond doubt, lack of particulars does not invalidate it. Held that trial court was not justified in striking out the issues relating to corrupt practice because the allegations disclosed all ingredients of the corrupt practice, though better particulars like dates were absent. B) Election Law - Amendment of Election Petition - Post-Limitation Better Particulars - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Section 86(5) - Amendments to amplify or give better particulars of a corrupt practice already alleged are permissible even after the period of limitation for ensuring a fair trial; however, an amendment introducing a new corrupt practice not previously alleged is impermissible as it would amount to a fresh petition. Held that the amendments sought by the appellant should have been allowed. C) Election Law - Corrupt Practice - Assistance of Gazetted Officer and Candidate Definition - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Sections 123(7), 79(b), 100(1)(b) - To establish corrupt practice, the petitioner must plead and prove that the candidate obtained assistance of a gazetted officer for furtherance of election prospects after becoming a candidate; Section 79(b) deems a person a candidate from the time when, with election in prospect, he began to hold himself out as a prospective candidate. Held that the question of when the gazetted officer's resignation became effective must be examined with reference to his conditions of service, which the trial court failed to do. D) Civil Procedure - Interrogatories - Relevance Requirement - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XI Rule 1 - Interrogatories served must have a reasonable close connection with 'any matters in question'; questions that may be relevant during cross-examination are not necessarily relevant as interrogatories. Held that the trial court was right in striking out the interrogatories.
Issue of Consideration
Whether election petition allegations disclosed corrupt practice under Section 123(7) read with Sections 79(b) and 100(1)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951; whether trial court was justified in striking out issues and refusing amendment; and whether interrogatories served under Order XI CPC were properly set aside.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed Civil Appeal No. 108 of 1972 in part, setting aside the trial court's order striking out Issues 1 and the portion of Issue 3 related to it, and restoring the recast Issue No. 1; allowed Civil Appeal No. 109 of 1972 by holding that the amendments sought by the appellant should have been allowed; upheld the trial court's order setting aside the interrogatories. The question of Yashpal Kapur's resignation effectiveness was directed to be examined with reference to his conditions of service.
Law Points
- Pleadings in election petition need not be strictly construed
- corrupt practice must be strictly proved but accusation must be precise under Section 86(5) of Representation of the People Act
- 1951
- particulars of corrupt practice already alleged may be amended after limitation
- interrogatories under Order XI Rule 1 CPC must have reasonable close connection with matters in question
- candidate under Section 79(b) includes person holding himself out as prospective candidate
- resignation of government servant must be examined under conditions of service.
