LexAJAY ARJUN SLNGH versus SHARADENDU TIWARI & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2016] 4 S.C.R. 555
AJAY ARJUN SlNGH
v.
SHARADENDU TIWARI & OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 2697 of2016)
MARCH 15, 2016
[J. CHELAMESWAR AND ABBAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
Representation of the People Act, 1951 - s.83(l){c) proviso
rlw. Order VI Rule 15(4) of CPC - Interlocutory application under
Order VIL Rule 11 CPC - Filed in Election petition - By the returned
candidate seeking dismissal of petition on the ground interalia that
the affidavit filed alongwith the petition was no.t in conformity with
Form 25 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 - Election petitioner
mentioned in his reply that the affidavit in Form 25 was to be found
at pages 394 and 395 of the petition and asserted that he filed two
affidavits with the petition - The High Court- held that though the
petitioner had not filed the affidavit in Form-25, but the defect was
curable and hence directed the petitioner to file an affidavit in Form
25 - Election Petitioner filed the affidavit as directed - Review
petition by the returned candidate against the order of High Court
was dismissed ..:.. Two appeals filed by the returned candidate in this
Court - The election petitioner also filed appeal challenging the
finding that affidavit in Form 25 was not filed - This Court
adjourned the matter in order to enable the parties to seek a
clarification as to whether there was one or two affidavits filed
alongwith the petition - Application for the clarification order filed
in High Court - High Court clarified that two affidavits were filed
alongwith the election petition - Returned candidate filed another
appeal to this Court challenging the clarification order - On the
ground that the order suffered from lack of jurisdiction being in
contravention of r. 13(2) of High Court of Madhya Pradesh Rules,
2008 - Held: The clarification order of High Court did not suffer
from lack of jurisdiction as the order was in conformity with s.80A(2)
of the Representation of the People Act - Stipulation u/r. 13(2) is
contrary to stipulation u/s. 80A(2) - As per Art. 225 of the
Constitution (under which High Court Rules were made) any Rule
shall be subject to the law, made by appropriate Legislature - It is
proved that the election petition was accompanied by an affidavit
555
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
556
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 4 S.C.R.
in Form 25 in compliance with the requirement of statute under
proviso to s.83(l)(c) - Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 - Form 25
- Constitution of India - Art. 225 - High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Rules, 2008 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or. VIL r. 11.
Dismissing the appeals filed by the returned candidate and
allowing that of the election petitioner, the Court
HELD: 1. Election petitions deal with the basic rights of
the citizenry of this country. Election is a "politically sacred" event
and an election dispute is too serious a matter to be dealt with
. casually. Therefore, the Parliament thought it fit to entrust the
adjudication of election disputes to the High Courts. The High
Court chose to deal with the matter casually. The result is that a
finding that there was no affidavit in the Form No.25 came to be
recorded without recording any finding regarding the existence
or otherwise of the affidavit which is said to have been annexed
in the election petition at page nos.394 and 395 nor its content.
Since the Interlocutory Application was dismissed, the election
petitioner had neither a reason nor the necessity to challenge
the correctness of the findings recorded in the order as the
decision is in his favour. [Para 20) [567-C-E]
2.1 According to the returned candidate, I.A. No.11665 of
2015 (seeking clarification from the High Court) ought to have
been heard .by a Division Bench because of the stipulation
contained in Rule 13(2) of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Rules, 2008. The said Rule stipulates that any application seeking
clarifications of an earlier order of the Court passed by a Judge,
who retired thereafter, ought to be heard by a Division Bench
and the Judge who passed the order in the OR VII R 11 petition
retired subsequently. This preliminary objection raised by the
returned candidate is not acceptable. [Paras 29 and 31) [570-F-
G; 571-A; 572-A-B)
2.2 The adjudication of election petitions including the
examination of all incidental questions in interlocutory
proceedings arising during the course of the adjudication of the
election petitionExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.