C. P. JOHN versus BABU M. PALISSERY & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 13 S.C.R. 1141 · Decided: 11-09-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 13 S.C.R.1141 
' 
C. P.JOHN 
v. 
BABU M. PALISSERY & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 5987-5988 of 2012) 
SEPTEMBER 11, 2014 
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA 
AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ] 
A 
B 
Representation of the People Act, 1951- ss. 83, 86, c 
123(10(A), 123(4), 33A(1)(ii) ands. 8(i), (ii), (iii) - Election 
Petition - Appellant challenging the successful election of 
returned candidate on the ground of corrupt practices and 
. that the returned candidate suppressed his conviction in two 
criminal cases in nomination papers - Written statement by 0 
returned candidate that the election petition not disclosed 
complete cause of action and the affidavit filed was not a 
proper affidavit, thus, non-compliance of s. 83 rw r. 94A and 
Form 25 -·Application also filed by returned candidate 
seeking rejection of election petition for the want of cause of E 
action -Appellant filing counter affidavit but did not take steps 
to correct the errors - Dismissal of election petition by the 
High Court- Interference with - Held: Not called for- When 
the appellant was not inclined to rectify the relief and was 
fully prepared to accept the decision of the High Court in the 
application as well as in the Election Petition, the appellant F 
should not be given any further opportunity to cure the defects 
which were very substantial in nature- Further, there was no 
compulsion for the first respondent to disclose the conviction 
in his nomination since it was for less than a year- Conduct G 
of Election Rules, 1961- r. 94A. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The situation relating to want of 
particulars and the failure to support the allegations 
H 
1141 
·1142 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 13 S.C.R. 
A made in the Election Petition by necessary affidavit as 
required to be filed under the proviso to Section 83(1) of 
the Representation of the People Act, 1951 was brought 
to the notice of the Appellant at the instance of the First 
Respondent in his written statement. In the counter 
B affidavit of the Appellant to the application, the Appellant 
did not seek for any prayer to amend or add any plea to 
the Election Petition or the affidavit filed in support of 
the Election Petition. On the other hand, in the counter 
affidavit, the Appellant continued to maintain his stand 
c that whatever particulars required, have been sufficiently 
set out in the petition and affidavit and it was not lacking 
in any statutory requirement. Thus, the Appellant allowed 
the High Court to examine the contention raised at the 
preliminary stage as to the maintainability of the Election 
o Petition for want of compliance of statutory requirement 
as prescribed u/s. 83(1) r/w Rule 94A of the Conduct of 
Election Rules, 1961 and as prescribed in Form 25 of 
the relevant Election Rules. Therefore, when the 
Appellant was not inclined to seek for any amendment 
E to the Election Petition or to the affidavit filed in support 
of the Election Petition, it cannot be understood as to 
how the Appellant can now raise any grievance to the 
effect that the High Court ought to have granted an 
opportunity to the Appellant to amend the pleadings. 
F [Para 30][1165-E-H; 1166-A-D] 
1.2 In the instant case, since the allegation of bribery 
falling under Section 123(1 )(A) was a serious allegation, 
if according to the Appellant, for levelling the said 
allegation there were no details furnished as to on which 
G . date and by whom the bribe amount was promised to 
be paid to the Second Respondent then, when such 
averments were not duly supported in the affidavit and 
when such serious defects were pointed out in the 
written statement as well as in the affidavit filed in 
H support of the application, the Appellant having taken a 
C. P. JOHN v. BABU M. PALISSERY & ORS. 
1143 
rigid stand that he wanted to go by whatever averments A 
contained in the Election Petition and affidavit filed in 
support of the Election Petition, he cannot subsequently 
turn around and state that inspite of such a categoric 
stand taken by him, the High Court should have gone 
out of the way and called upon him to rectify the defects, B 
which were very serious defects concerning material 
particulars relating to corrupt practice, for which there 
was no necessity for the High Court to show any such 
extraordinary indulgence to the Appellant. If the defect 
was one of format and not of substance, such defect c 
should also be allowed to be cured. In the instant case, 
th

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