LexKIMNEO HAOKIP HANGSHING versus KENN RAIKHAN & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 354 : 2024 INSC 689 Kimneo Haokip Hangshing v. Kenn Raikhan & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 10549 of 2024) 13 September 2024 [Sudhanshu Dhulia* and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the Court can dismiss an election petition at the very threshold on an application u/Ord. VII r. 11 CPC or that the petition needs a detailed consideration by the Court. Headnotes† Representation of the People Act, 1951 – ss. 83, 86 – Contents of the petition – Trial of election petition – Appellant elected in the General Elections to the State Legislative Assembly – Election petition by the respondent-contestant from the same seat, challenging the election of the appellant alleging that the appellant did not disclose her assets in her nomination papers and had indulged in corrupt practices in the election – Application u/Ord. VII r. 11 CPC read with s. 86 for rejection of the election petition by the appellant – Dismissed by the High Court holding that the election petition discloses a cause of action and that there is substantial compliance of the requirements provided under provisions of RPA and thus the election petition cannot be dismissed u/Ord. VII r. 11 application – Interference with: Held: Not called for – Perusal of s. 83 shows that an election petition should, inter alia, contain a concise statement of material facts and particulars of any corrupt practices which is alleged against the returned candidate, etc. – Proviso to s. 83(1) requires that the election petition to be accompanied by an affidavit in prescribed form to support the allegations of corrupt practices – Election petition should not be rejected at the very threshold where there is a “substantial compliance” of the provisions – In the election petition, the respondent pleaded * Author [2024] 9 S.C.R. 355 Kimneo Haokip Hangshing v. Kenn Raikhan & Ors. there was non- compliance with the requirement of furnishing true and correct information by the appellant – On a perusal of the petition as a whole, including the averments stated, it is clear that a cause of action has been disclosed by the respondent – Whether the appellant has concealed her investments and her income, and thus her nomination has been improperly accepted, is a triable issue – Also, affidavit, which is required as per the proviso to s. 83(1)(c) has to be given in Form 25 as per the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Ord. VII r. 11. [Paras 6, 8, 9, 12] Case Law Cited G.M. Siddeshwar v. Prasanna Kumar [2013] 4 SCR 1107 : (2013) 4 SCC 776; Thangjam Arunkumar v. Yumkham Erabot Singh [2023] 11 SCR 392 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1058 – referred to. List of Acts Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Representation of the People Act, 1951; Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. List of Keywords Non disclosure of assets in nomination papers; Corrupt practices; Rejection of the election petition; Cause of action; Election Petition to be accompanied by affidavit in prescribed form; Substantial compliance; Nomination. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10549 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 05.07.2023 of the High Court of Manipur at Imphal in MC (El.Pet.) No. 66 of 2022 in El. Pet. No. 34 of 2022. Appearances for Parties D N Goburdhan, Sr. Adv., B. Krishna Prasad, Mrs. Rajani K Prasad, Mrs. Sunita Rani Singh, Advs. for the Appellant. Ahanthem Henry, Ahanthem Rohen Singh, Tadup Tana Tara, Mohan Singh, Aniket Rajput, Ms. Khoisnam Nirmala Devi, Kumar Mihir, Advs. for the Respondents. 356 [2024] 9 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Leave granted. 2. The appellant before this Court is a Member of Legislative Assembly (hereinafter “MLA”) and was elected from the 46-Saikul Assembly Constituency in the 12th General Elections to the Manipur Legislative Assembly, which were held in 2022. The respondent, who was also a contestant from the same seat, filed an Election Petition before the High Court of Manipur challenging the result of the election on the grounds that the appellant has not disclosed her assets in her nomination papers and that she had indulged in “corrupt practices” in the election. The appellant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) read with Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (“RPA”) for rejection of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.