ISHWARDAS ROHANI versus ALOK MISHRA & ORS.

Citation: [2012] 13 S.C.R. 285 · Decided: 03-05-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 13 S.C.R. 285 
ISHWARDAS ROHAN! 
V. 
ALOK MISHRA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4189 of 2012) 
MAY 3, 2012 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.] 
Election Laws - Election Petition - Pleadings - Allegation 
A 
B 
in election petition that appellant (the returned candidate) had 
indulged in corrupt practices falling uls.123 of the 1951 Act -
C 
Appellant filed application challenging the election petition as 
being defective on various grounds viz. improper cause of 
action, vague allegations and non-disclosure of material facts 
and particulars, and thus liable to be rejected - High Court 
passed directions permitting respondent no.1-election D 
petitioner to cure deficiencies in the election petition and to 
suitably amend the pleadings alongwith proper verification and 
affidavit - Directions challenged before Supreme Court - Held 
[per Kabir, J.] High Court did not commit any error in directing 
the Election Petitioner to cure defects in the Election Petition 
E 
- Though the provisions of the 1951 Act have to be strictly 
construed, but that does not mean that any defect in the 
Election Petition cannot be allowed to be cured in the public 
interest - If after an opportunity is given, still no steps are taken 
by the Election Petitioner to cure the qefects which are 
F 
noticed, then the rigours of the procedure indicated by the 
1951 Act, would come into effect with full vigour - Held [per 
Chelameswar, J. (dissenting)], an election petition is required 
to contain all the material facts sufficient to constitute the 
cause of action for setting aside the election of the returned 
candidate - Though failure to give 'material particulars' has 
G 
not been held to be fatal, the failure to give 'material facts' has 
always been held to be fatal to the election petition - Election 
petition on hand did not state material facts constituting the 
various corrupt practices mentioned in the election petition -
285 
H 
286 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012) 13 S.C.R. 
A It was incapable of being read as disclosing any cause of 
action on the basis of any known cannon of interpretation of 
documents - Election petition thus not maintainable and liable 
to be dismissed -· In view of difference of opinion, matter 
referred to larger .Bench -Representation of the People Act, 
B 
1951 - s.123(1)(A) and (8), (2), (6) and (7). 
Respondent no.1 filed Election Petition challenging 
the election of appellant- the returned candidate, on the 
ground of corrupt practice, as contemplated in Sub-
C Sections (1 )(A) and (B), (2), (6) and (7) of Section 123 of 
the Representation of the People Act, 1951. In the 
pending Election Petition, the appellant filed an I.A. under 
Order VII Rule 11 read with Order VI Rule 16 of CPC, 
praying that the Election Petition filed by Respondent 
No.1 be rejected on ground of various deficiencies such 
D as improper cause of action, vague allegations and non-
disclosure of material facts and particulars. The High 
Court held that although the allegations of corrupt 
practice had not been properly drafted, the Election 
petition could nc>t be rejected on the said ground and 
E directed Respondent no.1 to cure defects in the election 
petition- in light c>f the objections raised, and amend the 
pleadings suitablly. The High Court further directed that 
after amending 1the pleadings, respondent no.1 would 
also verify the s;ame by furnishing an affidavit under 
F Order VI, Rule 15(4) CPC and further verify the pleadings 
relating to the corrupt practice by filing a proper affidavit 
in the prescribed Form No.25, as prescribed under Rule 
94-A and appendi~d to the Conduct of the Election Rules, 
1961. The direc:tions given by the High Court was 
G challenged in thE~ instant appeal. 
HELD: 
Per Kabir. J. 
H 
1.1. One line of decisions rendered by this Court 
ISHWARDAS ROHANI v. ALOK MISHRA & ORS. 
287 
suggests that since an Election Petition has serious A 
consequences under Section SA of the Representation 
of the People Act, 1951, the provisions of the Act have to 
be strictly construed and, particularly, in cases where 
corruption is alleged, any omission in the pleadings to 
mention such corrupt practice would render the Election 
B 
Petition not maintainable. On the other hand, another line 
of decisions suggests that since the issue involved in an 
Election Petition alleging corrupt practice, is of great 
public interest, an Election Petition should not be rejected 
at the threshold, but an opportunity

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