K.K. RAMACHANDRAN MASTER versus M.V. SREYAMAKUMAR & ORS.

Citation: [2010] 7 S.C.R. 712 · Decided: 06-07-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.K. JAIN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 7 S.C.R. 712 
K.K. RAMACHANDRAN MASTER 
v. 
M.V. SREYAMAKUMAR & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 638 of 2007) 
JULY 06, 2010 
[D.K. JAIN AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.] 
Representation of the People Act, 1951: 
c 
ss.83, 86, 123(4), 123(5 and 123(6) - Election petition 
challenging election of returned candidate on the ground of 
corrupt practices - High Court dismissed the petition - On 
appeal, held: A verments made in election petition that 
returned candidate was responsible for printing, publication 
0 and distribution of statements in newspapers which materially 
affected the result of election - Averments sufficiently 
disclosed cause of action - High Court committed error in 
holding otherwise -
Matter remitted to High Court for 
consideration afresh. 
E 
s.86 - Verification of the pleading - Defect in - Held: Is 
curable - Code of Civil Procedure, · 1908. 
Appellant filed election petition challenging the 
election of first respondent on the ground of corrupt 
F practices under Sections 123(4), (5) and (6) of 
Representation of People Act. Appellant's case was that 
false, defamatory and baseless allegations were 
published in various newspapers and circulated by the 
first respondent in order to lower the dignity, reputation 
G and personality of the appellant amongst the voters of his 
constituency. 
H 
High Court dismissed the petition holding that the 
petition was not properly verified in as much as the same 
712 
K.K. RAMACHANDRAN MASTER v. M.V. 
713 
SREYAMAKUMAR & ORS. 
did not disclose the source of information on the basis 
A 
of which the appellant had made the allegations of 
corrupt practices and the election petition did not state 
either the material facts or give the necessary particulars 
so as to disclose a complete cause of action justifying 
trial. Hence the appeal. 
B 
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High 
Court, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Section 83 of the Representation of 
People Act mandates that an election petition must C 
contain a concise statement of the material facts on 
which the petitioner relies and set forth full particulars of 
any corrupt practice that the petitioner alleges, including 
as full a statement as possible of the names of the parties 
alleged to have committed such corrupt practices and the 
D 
date and place of the commission of each such practice. 
It also requires that the petition be signed--by the 
petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the 
Code of Civil Procedure for the verification of the 
pleadings. A petition that does not disclose material facts 
E 
can be dismissed as one that does not disclose a cause 
of action. The dismissal of a petition on the ground of 
deficiency or non-disclosure of particulars of corrupt 
practice may be justified only if the election petitioner 
does not despite an opportunity given by the Court 
F 
provide the particulars and thereby cure the defect. 
[Paras 4, 5) [719-F-H; 720-A-C) 
Samant N. Balkrishna v. George Fernandez (1969) 3 
SCC 238; Raj Narain v. Indira Nehru Gandhi (1972) 3 SCC 
850; H.D. Revanna v. G. Puttaswamy Gowda (1999) 2 SCC 
G 
217; V.S. Achuthanandan v. P.J. Francis (1999) 3 SCC 737; 
Mahendra Pal v. Ram Dass Ma/anger (2000) 1 SCC 261; 
Sardar Harcharan Singh Brar v. Sukh Darshan Singh (2004) 
11 SCC 196; Harkirat Singh v. Amrinder Singh (2005) 13 
SCC 511; Umesh Challiyil v. K. P. Rajendra (2008) 11 SCC 
H 
714 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS. 
[2010] 7 S.C.R. 
A 740; Virender Nath Gautam v. Satpa/ Singh (2007) 3 SCC 
617, relied on. 
· 
1.2. The defective verification or affidavit is curable. 
What consequences, if any, may flow from an allegedly 
8 
defective affidavit, is required to be judged at the trial of 
an election petition but such election petition cannot be 
dismissed under Section 86(1) of the Act for any such 
defect. [Para 11] [723-H; 724-A-B] 
c 
F.A. Sapa v. Singora (1991) 3 SCC 375, relied on. 
1.3. Section 123(4) of the Act makes publication of 
any statement of fact which is false, and which relates to 
the personal character or conduct of any candidate a 
corrupt practice if any such statement is reasonably 
0 
calculated to prejudice the prospects of that candidate's 
election and if such publication has been made by a 
candidate or his election agent or by any other person 
with the consent of the candidate or his election agent. 
A reading of the averments made in the election petition 
E would show that the same gave particulars of how the 
published materials were

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