NAVJOT SINGH SIDHU versus OM PARKASH SONI & ORS.

Citation: [2016] 6 S.C.R. 766 · Decided: 26-10-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[2016] 6 S.C.R. 766 
NAVJOT SINGH SIDHU 
v. 
OM PARKASH SONI & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. l 0353of2016) 
OCTOBER 26, 2016 
(RANJAN GOGOi AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.) 
Election Laws - Election petition - Application u!Or. VI, 1: 16 
and Or. Vil, r.11 of CPC by the returned candidate - Seeking 
dismissal of petition as no triable issues were disclosed in the 
pleadings - The Court held that three broad categories of a/legations 
(viz. Corrupt practice, seeking assistance of Gazetted Officer for 
furthering election prospects and action taken by Returning Officer 
on complaint regarding counting of votes) in the petition disclosed 
triable issues - On appeal, held: As regards allegation of corrupt 
practice, in respect of expenditure on advertisement in Newspapers 
all the material facts with full particulars as required uls. 83(1)(b) 
of Representation of People Act have been furnished and hence the 
same is required to go for full-fledged trial - But in respect of 
a/legation a/expenditure in public meetings full particulars of the 
material facts are lacking, and thus the allegation do not disclose 
the triable issues - The allegations as regards taking assistance of 
Gazetted Officer also requires full trial - Third allegation (as regards 
counting of votes) is not with regard to commission of corrupt 
practice and by ejjlux of time the issue has become academic, hence 
not required to go into - Representation of People Act, 1951 -
s. 83(1J(b) - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - 01: VI, r.16, 01: VII, 
r.11. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 As per s. 83(1)(b) of Representation of the 
People Act, 1951, in case of an Election Petition founded on 
allegations of cormpt practice, not only the 'material facts' have 
to be pleaded, but even the full particulars thereof have to be 
furnished at the stage of filing of the Election Petition itself. In 
paras 10 and 11 of the present election petition, the dates on 
which the advertisements had appeared; the particulars of the 
newspapers in which such advertisements were published; the 
766 
NAVJOT SINGH SIDHU v. OM PARK.ASH SONI & ORS. 
767 
cost incurred for each type of advertisement in each newspaper, . A 
have all been mentioned. When details to the above extent have 
been mentioned in the Election Petition, it cannot be said that 
full particulars as required under Section 83(l)(b) have not been 
furnished by the election petitioner. The averments made with 
regard to election expenses in paragraph 10 and 11 of the Election 
Petition require to go for a full-fledged trial. [Paras 9, 10, 11] 
(777-C-F; 778-C] 
1.2 In paragraphs 12 to 15 of the Election Petition, the 
respondent-election petitioner, by giving details of expenditure 
incurred by the appellant in connection with public meetings held 
on different dates and in different venues, has pleaded that the 
expenses incurred on these public meetings is much more than 
what has been shown in the return of election expenses under 
. the said head (Rs.1,83,466/-). While the details of the meetings 
i.e. the time, date and venue are mentioned and so is the number 
of persons who are claimed to have attended the meetings, but 
there is no basis as to how the elec_tion petitioner had arrived at 
the quantum of expenses which he alleges to have been incurred 
by the returned candidate in holding each of the said meetings. _ 
What are the source(s) of information of the election petitioner 
with regard to the details furnished; whether he has personal 
knowledge of any of the said meetings; who are the persons who 
informed him of the details of such meetings; what is the basis of 
the estimate of the number of persons present and the facilities 
(chairs etc.) that were hired and the particulars of the refreshments 
served are nowhere pleaded. All such particulars that are an 
integral part of the allegation of corrupt practice alleged arc 
absent. In the absence of the aforesaid particulars, the allegations 
made in paragraphs 12 to 15 of the Election Petition do not 
disclose any triable issue so as to justify a regular trial of the said 
allegations. The allegations mentioned in paragraphs 12 to 15, 
so far as commission of corrupt practice of submission of 
false/incorrect return of election expenses is concerned, are, 
therefore, struck off. [Para 12] [778-D-H; 779-A] 
Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi 1986 SCR 782 : 1986 
(Supp) SCC 315; Ramakant Mayekar v. Celine D 'Silva 
1995 (6) 

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