SARDAR HARCHARAN SINGH BRAR versus SUKH DARSHAN SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 682 · Decided: 27-10-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SARDAR HARCHARAN SINGH BRAR 
v. 
SUKH DARSHAN SINGH AND ORS. 
B 
OCTOBER 27, 2004 
[R.C. LAHOTI, CJ. AND C.K. THAKKER, J.] 
Representation of the People Act. 1951; Ss. 80, 81-A, 82, 83, 86(1), 117 
C and 123(7)/Conduct of Election Rules, 1961; Rule 94-A: Filing of election 
petition by one of the defeated candidate against returned candidate on 
grounds of corr.up! practices etc. -Dismissed at the threshold by High Court-
Correctness of-Material facts alleged-Deficiency in particulars could not 
have been a ground for dismissing the petition at the threshold-Court could 
have directed the petitioner to cure the deficiency-If necerary particulars 
D not supplied by the petitioner, the Court could either strike off the pleadings 
or refuse to try the instances of corrupt prac ::ces-Else the effect of such 
failure could have been determined and adjudicated upon at the trial-Held, 
the High Court was not correct in dismissing the petition at the threshold-
Election Petition restored for hearing and decision by the High Court in 
E accordance with the directions set forth. 
Respondent No.I was declared elected from an Assembly Constituency 
defeating the appellant and other candidates in the Punjab State Assembly 
Elections, 2002. Appella~t filed an election petition challenging the election 
of respondent No.I on the ground that nomination of one of the respondents 
F was improperly accepted which has materially affected the election result, 
and the returned candidate was guilty of having committed corrupt practice 
in terms of Section 123(7) of the Representation of the People Act. High Court 
dismissed the petition at the threshold. Hence the present appeal. 
It was contended by the appellant that since the averments in tlie petition 
G contained not only the material facts but also the particulars, minute details 
H 
of the matter need not be given. 
Respondent-Returned candidate submitted that since the averments made 
in the election petition did not disclose any material facts, it cannot be tried. 
682 
SARDAR HARCHARAN SINGH BRAR v. SUKH DARSHAN SINGH 
683 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
A 
HELD:l. The High Court has not been right in directing the petition to 
be dismissed at the threshold by forming an opinion that the averments made 
in the election petition were deficient in material facts as the test laid down 
in the several authorities and in particular in the case of Raj Narain is fully 
satisfied. The grounds of corrupt practice and the facts necessary to formulate B 
a complete cause of action have been stated, even the particulars have been 
given in the petition. However, ifthe Court feels that the particulars as given 
in the petition are deficient in any manner the petitioner can be directed to 
StJpply the particulars and make the deficiency good. In any case, deficiency 
in particulars could not have been a ground for dismissing the petition at the C 
threshold. It is only the non-supply of particulars though ordered by the Court 
which could have led to either striking off of the pleadings or refusal to try 
the related instances of alleged corrupt practice. [689-F-G-H; 690-A-B-C) 
Raj Narain v. Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi and Anr., [1972] 3 SCC 850; 
H.D. Revanna v. G. Puttaswamy Gowda and Ors., [1999) 2 SCC 217; V.S. D 
Achuthanandan v. P.J. Francis and Anr., [1999] 3 SCC 737 and Mahendra 
Pal v. Ram Dass Malander and Ors., [2000) 1 SCC 261, relied on. 
2.1. The proviso enacted to sub-section (1) of Section 83 of the 
Representation of the People Act is couched in a mandatory form inasmuch 
as it provides that a petition alleging corrupt practice shall be accompanied E 
by an affidavit in the prescribed form in support of the allegations of such 
corrupt practice and the particulars thereof. The form is prescribed by Rule 
94A of the conduct of Election Rules. But at tbe same time, it cannot be lost 
sight of that failure to comply with the requirement as to filing of an affidavit 
cannot be a ground for dismissal of an election petition in limine under sub- F 
section (1) of Section 86 of the Act. The point is no more res integra and is 
covered by several decisions of this Court. [690-C-D-E) 
G. Mallikarjunappa and Anr. v. Shamanur Shivashankarappa and Ors., 
[2001) 4 SCC 428 and Dr. Vijay Laxmi Sadho v. Jagdish [200112 SCC 247, 
relied on. 
G 
2.2. The defect in the verification and the affidavit is a curable defect. 
What other consequences, if any, may follow from an allegedly "defective

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