Case Note & Summary
The original application was filed by the returned candidate in the Chennai Central Loksabha Parliamentary Constituency election, seeking to strike off certain paragraphs from the election petition filed by an unsuccessful candidate. The election petitioner had alleged that the election was vitiated by corrupt practices and violations of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, including the publication of a full-page advertisement in newspapers on polling day during the silence period, failure to account for expenses on stickers pasted on houses, expenses for food and chairs provided to booth agents, and expenses for a massive rally. The petitioner sought a declaration that the election was null and void. The applicant contended that the pleadings lacked material facts, were vague, and did not disclose a cause of action. The court, after hearing both sides, outlined the strict pleading requirements in election petitions as settled by the Supreme Court, emphasizing that allegations of corrupt practice must be precise, contain all material particulars, and not be based on vague or general averments. It noted that an election petition can be struck off at any stage if it fails to disclose a cause of action. The court then began examining the specific pleadings, starting with the advertisement allegation, but the available text ends before a final determination. No final order or decision is provided in the extracted portion.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Pleadings - Strict Requirements - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Sections 83, 100 - The court summarized the law that allegations of corrupt practice must be precise, contain all material facts, and not be vague. Failure to plead material facts is fatal, and amendments after limitation cannot introduce new material facts. Evidence must be clear, cogent, and stand strict scrutiny. Oral evidence alone is unsafe. (Paras 10-12) B) Civil Procedure - Striking Out Pleadings - Order VI Rule 16 CPC - Election Petitions - The court may strike out pleadings that do not disclose a cause of action, without waiting for written statement. This power exists to prevent vexatious litigation and to ensure that the success of a candidate is not lightly interfered with given the serious consequences of re-election on public funds and administration. (Paras 13-14) C) Election Law - Corrupt Practice - Advertisement on Polling Day - Sections 123, 126 Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Allegation that a full-page advertisement in four newspapers on polling day, published by the applicant's political party, constituted campaigning in violation of Section 126 and corrupt practice under Section 123. Applicant contended the advertisement was by the party, not the candidate, and permissible under Election Commission instructions. Court began examining material facts but judgment text ends mid-analysis. (Para 16)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the pleadings in paragraphs 6 to 23 and 27 of Election Petition No.2 of 2024 are liable to be struck off under Order VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Final Decision
Decision not clearly stated
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Strict construction of pleadings in election petitions
- material facts vs. material particulars
- power to strike out pleadings under Order VI Rule 16 CPC
- allegations of corrupt practice must be clear and specific
- failure to plead material facts is fatal
- consequences of setting aside an election
