KAMALNATH versus SUDESH VERMA

Citation: [2002] 1 S.C.R. 63 · Decided: 08-01-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

t 
KAMALNATH 
A 
v. 
SUDESH VERMA 
JANUARY 8, 2002 
[G.B. PATTANAIK AND Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.) 
B 
Election Laws: 
Representation of the People Act, 1951-Sections 2(h), 77, 83 and 
123(6) 
c 
Election petition-Corrupt practices-Meaning of-Amount spent 
exceeding the prescribed ceiling on election expenses-Expenditure so 
incurred must be either by the candidate/his agent/authorised person-It 
must be established and shown in pleading that authorisation and D 
undertaking of reimbursement of such expenditure by the candidate/election 
agent. 
Material facts-Should disclose incurring of excess expenditure and 
candidate's undertaking of liability to reimburse and allegations on which 
Court could draw inferences of expenditure beyond the prescribed limit- E 
Vague assertions would not constitute the material facts and election petition 
not maintainable-Conduct of Election Rules-Rule 90. 
S.83-Disclosure of sources of information of excess expenditure in the 
affidavit-Requirements of-On facts the averment as well as the contents of 
verifications and affidavit-Does not constitute infraction of the provision- F 
Conduct of Election Rules-Rule 94-A. 
Appellant was declared elected from a Lok Sabha Constituency. 
Respondent filed an election petition challenging the election of the appellant, 
on the grounds of corrupt practices under Section 123(6) of the 
Representation of the People Act; and that appellant had incurred or authorised G 
expenditure in contravention of Section 77 of the Act High Court struck down 
certain paras of the petition by holding them unnecessary and frivoulous. As 
regards the alleged expenditure in excess of the ceiling limit, High Court 
held that the cause of action thereof has been disclosed and, therefore, petition 
cannot be dismissed in limine. The appellant filed review petition which was H 
63 
64 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2002] l S.C.R 
A rejected. Hence this appeal. 
It was contended for the appellant that the assertions made in the petition 
did not make out an allegation of corrupt practice as per Section 123(6) of 
the Act; that on vague and general allegations without giving any material 
particulars, no triable issue existed; that in the absence of requisite facts, 
B details and particulars of the corrupt practice with exactitude, the election 
petition must fail on the threshold; that in absence of more particulars on 
source of information in the affidavit, there has been an infraction of 
requfrement under Section 83 of the Act and the election petition ought to 
have been rejected. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
It was contended for the respondent that the election petition contained 
the material facts alleging that the returned candidate had spent more than 
the ceiling provided for and there existed a triable issue which can only be 
adjudicated after evidence being led. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.,1. On a combined reading of Section 77 and Section 123 
(C) of the Representation of the People Act, it is explicitly clear that the excess 
expenditure must be incurred by the candidate or by any person authorised 
by the candidate or his election agents. An expenditure incurred by a third 
person, who is not authorised by a candidate or who is not an election agent 
of the candidate, will not be corrupt practice within the ambit of Section 123(6) 
of the Act. It would, therefore, be necessary to establish a corrupt practice, to 
plead requisite facts showing authorisation or undertaking of reimbursement 
by the candidate or his election agent. [68-G-H; 69-A) 
1.2. Vague assertion would not necessarily constitute the material fact 
that the candidate has spent by way of hiring of helicopter, an amount exceeding 
the ceiling provided under Rule 90 of the Conduct of Election Rules. It is 
difficult to hold that the material facts in relation to the alleged corrupt 
practice within the ambit of Section 123(6) read with Section 77 of the Act, 
have all been pleaded, so that the matter would be left to lead evidence during 
trial. It has not been pleaded specifically that either the appellant had incurred 
the expenditure amounting to a particular sum or has authorised his agent to 
incur the same or that he has authorised any other person to make the 
expenditure which the appellant has undertaken to reimburse. There is no 
averment on record indicating that the appellant either did incur the 
expenditure of hiring helicopter for a specified number of hours or that he 
-
~ 
~ 
..

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