MITHILESH KUMAR versus SRI R. VENKATARAMAN & ORS.

Citation: [1988] 1 S.C.R. 525 · Decided: 16-10-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

. 
MITHILESH KUMAR 
,A 
A 
v. 
SRI R. VENKATARAMAN & ORS. 
OCTOBER 16, 1987 
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, RANGANATH MISRA, 
B 
t 
G.L. OZA, M.M. DUTT AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.] 
The Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Ad, 1952-s. 
18(1)(a)-Read with r. 34, O.XXXIX, and r.6, O.XXIll, of the 
Supreme Court Rules, 1966-Plea for setting aside an election on the 
ground of commission of offence of 'undue influence'-·Petition liable c 
to be rejected if it does not contain a specific averment that either the 
t 
returned candidate himself had committed any act of 'undue influence' 
or any other person had committed any act of 'undue influence' with his 
consent. 
Part III of the Presidential and Vice-Presideatial Elections Act, D 
1952 sets out the provisions relating to the settlelMnt of disputes re-
garding elections to the olllces of the President and the Vice-President 
of India. Section 14(3) thereof requires that an election petition should 
be presented in accordance with the provisions of that Part and of the 
~ 
rules made by this Court under Art. 145 of the Constitution. The rules 
so made are contained in O.XXXIX of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966. 
E 
Rule 34 thereof provides that subject to the provisions Qf that ()rder or 
any Special Order or directions of the Court, the procedµre on an 
election petition shall follow, as neu-ly as may be, the procedure in 
proceedlnp before the Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, 
which procedure is set out in O.XXDI. Rule 6 of O.XXDI states inter 
_j 
alia that the plaint shall be rejected where it does not dtsclose a cause of F 
action. 
Respondent No. 1 was declared elected as the President of India at 
an election held in July, 1987. The petitioner who had contested in the 
said election as a candidate filed this petition questioning the valdity of 
the election of respondent No. 1 and praying for a declaration that he G 
was the successful candidate at that election. 
;._ 
Rejecting the petition, 
HELD: In the circumstances of this case the Court bas ilo choice 
except to reject the petition as recillired under r. 6 of O.XXIII of H 
525 
526 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 as it does not disclose any cause of' 
~ 
action. f537B l 
B 
(i) Section 18 of the Presideatial and Vice-Presidential Elections 
Act, 1952 is exhaustive of the grouads on which the election of the 
President or the Vice-President can be declared void. An election may 
be set aside under cl.(a) of s. 18(1) if it is established that the offence of 
bribery or undne influence, as explained in Chapter IXA of the Indian 
Penal Code had been committed by the returned candidate or by any 
person with the consent of the returned candidate. In order to succeed 
on the gronnds mentioned ins. 18(1)(a) it has to be established that the 
offence of bribery or undue influence had been committed at the elec-
tion by the returned candidate himself; or by any person with his 
C consent. fSJOG-H; 531A·Bl 
(ii) The manner in which the present petition has been draft~d is 
not in accordance with the Rules. Ordinarily the petition should state in 
a narrative form succinctly and clearly all the facts as· may be necessary 
D to enable the respondents and the Court to understand the case of the 
petitioner. This is not the ·case here. The first part of the petition con· 
tains 13 questions and the answers given by the petitioner to those 
questions. A reading of all these 13 questions and answers given thereto 
i 1 
by the petitioner shows that the only ground on which the petitioner 
wished to call in question the election of the 1st respondent is that the 
~ 
E issue of a whip by the Congress (I) Party to its legislators on the eve of · 
the election asking them to cast their votes in favour of the 1st respon-
dent was in the nature of a threat amounting to undue influence which is 
one of the two grounds set oot in s. 18(l)(a). The allegations made in 
this part of tbe petition sagest that the specific case of the petitioner is 
that tbe said act of undue influence had been committed by the 
F memben of the COlllP- (I) Party. There is no allegation that any act ~ 
amountinc to undue influence was committed either by respondent 
No. 1 himself or by any other person with his consent. Even in the 
j 
second part of die petition which is entitled 'Notable points' and the 
third part of the petition containing grounds to declare the election of 
the returned ca!Mlidate as v

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