ASHWINI KUMAR SHARMA versus YADUVANSH SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 616 · Decided: 01-12-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
ASHWINI KUMAR SHARMA 
v. 
Y ADUVANSH SINGH AND ORS. 
DECEMBER I, 1997 
[SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.] 
Representation of the People Act, 1951-Section 83 (!)(a); Section 
JOO (!) (d) (iii)-Election Petition-Maintainability of-A,llegation of 
Irregularities and illegalities in the counting of votes-High Court dismissed 
C the petition on the ground that the petition did not disclose a complete cause 
of action-Election Petition containing a concise statement of material facts-
Held, Election Petition maintainable-The relevant provision in the present 
case is Section 83(J)(a) which requires the petition to contain only a 
concise statement of material facts on which the petitioner relies unlike 
D under section 83(/)(b) where it is necessmy to set out full particulars--
Entire evidence in support of such material facts not required to be set out--
Civil Procedure Code 1908-0rder Vll rule I I; Order VJ Rule 16. 
The appellant and the respondents contested elections from 190 Lakhi 
Sarai Vidhan Sabha constituency in the State of Bihar in which respondent 
E No.I emerged victorious. The appellant moved the Patna High Court 
challenging the election of respondent No. I alleging irregularities and 
illegalities in the counting of votes. The High Court held that the allegations 
regarding irregularities in the counting of ballot papers were not supported 
by adequate material or by material particulars and dismissed the election 
F 
petition of the appellant as not maintainable. Aggrieved, the appellant moved 
this court. 
Allowing the Appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. An election petition is required to co'!tain a concise statement 
of material facts, this being equivalent to a cause of action. The entire 
G evidence in support of such material facts is not required to be set out. 
[620-F[ 
1.2. The election petition deals with the counting of ballot paper and 
why, according to the appellant, such counting was unfair, improper or not 
H in accordance with law. He has particulars of some of the irregularities and 
616 
'.1~ 
~ 
:=-· 
A.K. SHARMA v. Y ADUVANSH SINGH [MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J.] 617 
illegalities in the counting of votes. The election petition cannot be rejected A 
at a preliminary stage on the ground that it does not contain a concise 
statement of material facts. From the contents of the election petition of the 
appellant it is not possible to held that a concise statement of material facts 
is not to be found in the petition. [619-H; 620-AJ 
Arun Kumar Bose v. Mohd. Furkan Ansari & Ors., AIR (1983) SC B 
1311, relied upon. 
13. Evidence in support of the pleas which have been taken or facts 
which have been pleaded, cannot be confused with the concise statement of 
material facts which an election petition is required to set out under Section C 
83(l)(a). If material particulars are lacking, they may be supplied at a later 
date. [620-D-FJ 
Shri Udhav Singh v. Madhav Rao Scindia, [1997) l SCC 511, relied 
upon. 
2. The election petition of the appellant does not allege any corrupt D 
practice. Therefore, in the present case, the question of application of Section 
83(1)(b) does not arise. The only relevant provision therefore, is Section 
83(I)(a) which requires the petition to contain a concise statement of material 
facts on which the petitioner relies. [618-GJ 
Jitendra Bahadur Singh v. Krishana Behari & Ors., [1970) l SCR 852 E 
and Satyanarain Dudhani v. Uday Kumar Singh Ors., [1993) Supp. 2 SCC 
82, cited. 
CIV!L AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1702 of 
1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.1.97 of the Patna High Court in 
E.P. No. 36of1995. 
Salman Khurshid and Gopal Singh for the Appellant. 
F 
S.N.P. Sharma, (Ravi Bhushan) for Goodwill Indeevar and S.P. Singh for G 
the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
MRS. SUJA TA V. MANO HAR, J. The appellant and the respondents 
contested the Vidhan Sabha Election held in March, 1995 from the 190 Lakhisarai H 
618 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A Constituency in the State of Bihar. Respondent no. 1 was declared as the 
returned candidate. The appellant challenged the election of respondent no.1 
before the Patna High Court by filing an election petition. In this petition he 
challenged the election under Section I 00( I)( d)(iii) of the Representation of 
the People Act, 1951, alleging that the result of the election had been materially 
B affected by the improper reception of votes and b

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.