KAPIL MUNI KARWARIYA versus CHANDRA NARAIN TRIPATHI

Citation: [2012] 1 S.C.R. 956 · Decided: 15-02-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 1 S.C.R. 956 
A 
KAPIL MUNI KARWAP.IYA 
v. 
CHANDRA NARAIN TRIPATHI 
(Civil Appeal No. 2122 of 2012) 
B 
FEBRUARY 15, 2012 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR,JJ.] 
Representation of the People Act, 1951: ss.81, 86 -
Election petition - Maintainability of - Election petition 
C challenging the election of returning candidate on the ground 
that nomination papers of respondent were wrongly rejected 
by the returning officer - The ground of rejection of nomination 
papers was that the name of the second proposer was deleted 
from the electoral roll and, therefore, nomination was not 
D subscribed by ten proposers as required u/s.33 - Returning 
candidate filed applications for dismissing election petition for 
non-compliance of s.81(1) and for non-disclosure of cause of 
action - Election Tribunal dismissed the applications - On 
appeal, held: The view taken by the Election Tribunal was 
E correct that the Election Petition filed by the Respondent was 
required to be considered on evidence on account of the 
allegations made therein - The question regarding the right 
of the second proposer to be a subscriber to nomination paper 
filed by the respondent was the fundamental question which 
F could only be decided on evidence - No interference called 
for with the order of the Election Tribunal. 
The District Allahabad consists of lwo Parliamentary 
Constituencies, namely, 51-Phulpur Parliamentary 
Constituency 
and 
52-Allahabad 
Parliamentary 
G Constituency. The appellant filed his nomination paper as 
a candidate of the Bahujan Samaj Party. The Respondent 
filed his nomination paper for contesting the election to 
the said 51-Phulpur Parliamentary Constituency as a 
H 
956 
KAPIL MUNI KARWARIYA v. CHANDRA NARAIN 
957 
TRI PATH I 
candidate of Krantikari Jai Hind Sena. The nomination of A 
the respondent for contesting election was rejected on 
the ground that the nomination was not subscribed by 
10 proposers as per the requirement of Section 33 of the 
Representation of the People Act, 1951 since the name 
of the second proposer, 'PK' was found to have been 
B 
deleted from the electoral roll. The appellant was 
declared elected. 
The Respondent filed election petition for a 
declaration that the election of the appellant as a Member C 
of Parliament 
from 
51-Phulpur 
Parliame11tary 
Constituency of District Allahabad be set aside and be 
declared null and void on the ground that his nomination 
paper which he had filed to contest the election were 
wrongly rejected. 
D 
The appellant filed an application under Section 86(1) 
of the 1951 Act, in election petition praying for dismissal 
of the election petition on the ground of non-compliance 
of the provisions of Section 81(1) of the 1951 Act. The 
appellant also filed another application under Order VII 
E 
Rule 11, CPC in the said Election Petition for dismissal 
of the election petition for non-disclosure of the cause of 
action. In this application it was categorically indicated 
that the name of the proposer No.2, 'PK" had been struck 
off from the electoral roll and he was no more an elector 
F 
from the said place and was not, therefore, entitled to 
propose the name of the Respondent for election to the 
51-Phulpur Parliamentary 
Constituency. 
These 
applications were dismissed by the Election Tribunal. The 
Election Petition was, thereafter, directed to be listed for G 
disposal of the amendment applications moved on behalf 
of the appellant and also for settlement of issues. The 
instant appeal was filed challenging the said interim order 
of the Election Tribunal. 
H 
958 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: Having considered the fact that the Election 
Petition is yet to be disposed of by the Election Tribunal, 
making any observations in this proceedings would 
8 certainly have an effect on the pending proceedings 
before the Election Tribunal. The view taken by the 
Election Tribunal was correct that the Election Petition 
filed by the Respondent was required to be considered 
on evidence on account of the allegations made therein. 
The question regarding the right of 'PK' to be a 
C subscriber to the nomination paper filed by the 
Respondent is the fundamental question which is 
required to be considered in this case. Being the central 
question involved in the pending Election Petition, the 
allegations contained therein have to be decided before 
D a decision can be rendered regarding the

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