SATHI VIJAY KUMAR versus TOTA SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 433 · Decided: 08-12-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.K. SABHARWAL · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

\ 
SATHI VIJA Y KUMAR 
v. 
TOTA SINGH AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 8, 2006 
[Y.K. SABHARWAL, CJI., C.K. THAKKER AND R. V. RA VEENDRAN, JJ.] 
Representation of People Act, 1951 
Election petition 
Necessary parties-Substitute candidate of a recognized political 
party-Held-On acceptance of nomination paper of main approved candidate 
of that party, nomination paper of substitute candidate has to be rejected, 
and their non-joinder to an Election Petition was of no consequence. 
A 
B 
c 
Striking out pleadings-Held-The Act does not make any provision D 
as to striking out pleadings-As Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been 
made applicable to trial of Election Petitions by Section 87 of the Act, 
pleadings which are required to be struck off under Rule 16 of Order VI in 
a suit can also be ordered to be struck off in an election petition-However, 
normally a Court cannot direct parties as to how they should prepare their E 
pleadings-If parties have not offended rules of pleadings by making averments 
or raising arguable issues, Court would not strike out pleadings-Power to 
strike out pleadings is extraordinary in nature and must be exercised by 
Court sparingly and with extreme care, caution and circumspection. 
Striking out pleadings-Held-,When election petitioner has expressly F 
stated that names of about six hundred electors had been deleted wrongly 
and placed on record their entire list along with particulars as to serial 
number, house number, name, sex, age, remarks etc., it could not be said that 
a/legation was vague or incomplete and liable to be struck down-It was not 
necessary for the petitioner to plead one or other reasons for such deletion- G 
It was more so as petitioner was neither supplied with copy of order of 
deletion of voters nor allowed to inspect it, despite request for same-
Material facts and full particulars as required had been set out-Section 83 
and 123 (7). 
433 
H 
434 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 
A 
Striking down pleading-Allegation that nomination paper of a 
candidate improperly accepted-Held that when case is only at stage of 
pleading, such allegation cannot be struck down on ground that onus was 
on petitioner to discharge burden and to prove how many of voters who had 
voted for that candidate would have voted in his favour. 
B 
Striking down pleading-Allegation in election petition that successful 
candidate was guilty of corrupt practice of obtaining assistance of Returning 
Officer by getting names of several electors wrongly deleted-said fact coming 
to light only when those electors went to exercise their right to vote-Also 
alleged that order of deletion antedated and said action taken by Returning 
C Officer to further prospects of election of successful candidate-Held that 
material facts and full particulars as required by Section 83 read with 
Section 123(7) of the Act had been set out in election petition and same 
could not be deleted. 
Section 123(7)-Ambit and scope of-Corrupt practice if assistance is 
D sought from a gazetted officer-Held-Consent of candidate is required only 
in those cases where such assistance is sought by person other than candidate 
himself (or his election agent)-Where candidate himself (or his election 
agent) is seeking assistance of a gazetted officer, question of consent does 
not arise. 
E 
Conduct of Election Rules, 1961-Rules 54A-Postal ballot without 
requisite declaration-Held-Their rejection is not contrary to law-It is 
irrelevant that majority of those ballot were of those electors who were 
posted outside constituency and were fully conversant with voting procedure. 
Appellant was defeated by first respondent in elections for State 
F Assembly. Aggrieved by this, he filed and Election Petition in High Court on 
the ground that the latter had committed several irregularities and at his 
instance, the authorities committed illegalities to favour him, increasing his 
chances of success, and thereby he got elected by committing corrupt practice. 
On that basis, he prayed that election of first respondent be declared void under 
G Representation of People Act, 1951 read with Conduct of the Election Rules, 
1961. In response, the first respondent filed written statement contending 
that the election petition was not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary 
party, non-disclosure cause of action/material facts and for pleadings therein 
being otherwise an abuse of process of Court and therefore requiring to be 
deleted. 
H 

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