REGU MAHESH @ REGU MAHESWAR RAO versus RAJENDRA PRATAP BHANJ DEV AND ANR.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 7 · Decided: 30-10-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

.J 
" 
REGU MAHESH ·@ REGU MAHESW AR RAO 
A 
v. 
RAJENDRA PRATAP BHANJ DEV AND ANR. 
OCTOBER 30, 2003 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
B 
Representation of the People Act, 1951. 
Sections 5, 81, 83, 86, JOO(l)(c) and (d) (i), 116 and 123-Election 
petition challenging election to reserved constituency for Scheduled Tribe on C 
the ground that elected candidate does not belong to ST-Whether allegation 
amounts to corrupt practice-Held, allegation of fraud, etc. in obtaining false 
caste certificate does not per se constitute corrupt practice-Provision requiring 
affidavit in prescribed form not strictly applicable-Verification of election 
petition not proper-Effect of-Held, defects in verification/affidavit curable- D 
Defects in verification/affidavit pointed out-Dismissal of petition sought on 
those grounds-No steps taken to cure defect-Incorrect facts stated in 
petition-Casual, negligent or cavalier approach of petitioner-On facts, held 
judgment dismissing election petition does not call for inteiference---Code of 
Civil Procedure, 1908-0rder VI Rules 15and1.6---Conduct of Election Rules, 
1951-Rule 94-A. 
E 
Appellant filed election petition under Sections 5 and IOO(l)(c) and 
(d)(i) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 challenging the election 
of respondent no. 1 from Saluru (ST) Legislative Assembly Constituency 
reserved for members of the Scheduled Tribe (ST) on the ground that F 
respondent no. 1 does not being to ST. Respondent no. 1 filed application 
under Order VI Rule 16 and Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of 
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Section 86 of the 1951 Act for 
rejecting election petition. High Court held that allegations made in the 
election petition were grave and had to be treated at par with those 
relating to corrupt practices and rejected election petition on the ground G 
that affidavit accompanying election petition did not conform to Form 
prescribed (Form No. 25) under Rule 94-A of the Conduct of Election 
> 
Rules, 1961; that election petition did not disclose valid cause of action as 
material facts were not pleaded and contained averments which did not 
7 
H 
8 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A fit into an election petition under Sections 5 and IOO(l)(d)(i) of the 1951 
Act; and that verification of the pleadings was not proper as the same did 
not conform to requirements laid down in Statute in regard to alleged 
corrupt practice. Hence these appeals under Section 116A of the 1951 Act. 
Appellant contended that insistence on affidavit envisaged in relation 
B to corrupt practices is not correct as there was no allegation of corrupt 
practice in the election petition; that election petition contained requisite 
information and should not have been dismissed; that deficiencies in 
verification and affidavit are of curable nature .and High Court should 
have granted an opportunity to cure the defects; and that Section 86(1) 
C of the 1951 Act did not apply to the facts of the case. 
Respondent no. I contended that the election petition is extremely 
vague; that petitioner did state that he was an elector; that election petition 
did not contain proper verfication; that election petition did not indicate 
cause of action; and that pleadings show allegations of corrupt practices 
D in terms of Section 123(3) of the 1951 Act. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. In- terms of Section 83(b) of the Representation of the 
People Act, 1951 wherever corrupt practice is alleged, full particulars of 
E such practice alleged including a full statement as possible of names of 
the parties alleged to have committed corrupt practice and the date and 
place of commission of such practice has to be indicated. Though allegatio!I 
of fraud etc. in obtaining false caste certificate have serious implications, 
under the Act and particularly as the language of Section 123(3) specifies 
and enumerates they do not per se constitute corrupt practice. The fact 
F that a candidate obtains a certificate that he belonged to and is a member 
of the Scheduled Caste/Tribe to contest as one belonging to such caste/ 
Tribe, essential and necessary for contesting as a candidate in a Reserved 
Constituency, at any rate, cannot amount to an appeal to vote or refrain 
from voting on ground of his caste/Tribe for the reason that what was 
G obligated by the statute upon any one to be entitled to co.test in such a 
reserved constituency cannot become condemnable a

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