DHARTIPAKAR MADAN LAL AGARWAL versus RAJIV GANDHI

Citation: [1987] 3 S.C.R. 369 · Decided: 11-05-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, K.N. SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 10 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

\ 
I 
DHARTJPAKAR MADAN LAL AGARWAL 
J 
A 
v. 
RAJIV GANDHI 
MAY II, 1987 
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.] 
B 
). 
Representation of the People Act, 1950: ss. 77, 80 to 87, 100 and 
123-Election petition-Allegations of corrupt practice-Not to be 
~ vague or general-scrutiny by Court in a strict manner-Jurisdiction of 
Court to strike out pleadings-Empowered at any stage of proceeding 
even before filing of written statement-Time limit for enquiry- c 
.. 
Desirability for suitable Parliamentary legislation . 
't-
Code of Civil Procedure: 0. VI R. 16, 0. VII R. Il, Striking out 
of pleadings-Rejection of election petition-Jurisdiction of the Court. 
The election of the respondent, who was returned to the Lok 
D 
Sabha in a bye election in 1981, was challenged by the appellant under 
s. 80 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, on a number of 
)- grounds, including the allegations of corrupt practice of undue influe-
nee, hiring and procuring of vehicles for carrying voters and obtaining 
the assistance of Government servants and incurring expenses at the 
election in excess of the permissible limit. Upon a preliminary objection E 
raised by the respondent the High Court struck off the pleadings as 
vague, general, unnecessary, frivolous and vexatious within the mean· 
~,..., ing of Order VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure and rejected the 
petition under Order VII Rule 11 read with s. 87 of the Act on the ground 
that it did not disclose any cause of action. 
·~ 
F 
In the appeal under s. 116-A of the Act against the order of the 
High Court, it was contended for the appellant that the High Court had 
no jurisdiction to entertain preliminary objections under Order VI Rule 
16 or to reject the election petition under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code 
before the respondent had med his written statement to the petition' 
which deprived him of the opportunity of amending the petition by G 
supplying material facts and particulars, that allegations contained in 
> 
~various paragraphs of the petition constituted corrupt practices which 
disclosed cause of action within the meaning of s. 100 of the Act and the 
High Court committed error in holding that the petition was defective, 
on the premise that it did not disclose any triable issue, and that the 
election petition disclosed primary facts regarding corrupt practice and H 
369 
-
370 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
I 1987] 3.S.C.R. 
A if there was absence of any particulars or details the High Court should 
have afforded opportunity to the appellant to amend the petition. 
The respondent was subsequently returned to the .Lok Sabha in 
the general election held in 1984 and the validity of that election has 
been upheld in Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi, AIR 1986 SC 1253 and 
B Bhagwati Prasad v. Rajiv Gandhi, [1986] 4 SCC 78. The reliefofsetting 
-4. -
aside the impugned election hlid thus become infrnctuous by lapse of 
time as the subsequent election could not be set aside on the grounds • 
raised in the petition. But since s. 98 read with s. 99 of the Act mandates 
' 
investigation of charges of corrupt practice, if any, raised against the 
returned candidate, and as proof thereof entails incurring of disqualifi-
-
c cation from contesting subsequent election for a p€riod of six years, the 
Court heard the appeal at length. 
~ 
On the questions: Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to 
strike out pleadings under Order VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Proce-
dure and to reject an election petition under Order VII Rule 11 of that 
D Code at the preliminary stage, even though no written statement had 
been filed by the respondent, whether in the instant case in entertaining -f 
the preliminary objections and rejecting the election petition the High 
Court deprived the appellant of an opportunity to amend the petition 
and to make good the deficiencies by supplying necessary particulars 
and details of the corrupt practices alleged in the petition, and whether 
E the various paragraphs of the said election petition disclosed any cause 
of action. 
~-.. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD: l.1 Right to contest election or to question the election by 
~. 
F 
means of an election petition is neither common law nor fundamen-
tal right, instead it is a statutory right regulated by the statutory 
provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which is 
a complete and self contained Code. Outside the statutory provisions, 
there is no right to dispute an elect

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