THANGJAM ARUNKUMAR versus YUMKHAM ERABOT SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 11 S.C.R. 392 · Decided: 23-08-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

CASE DETAILS
THANGJAM ARUNKUMAR
v.
YUMKHAM ERABOT SINGH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 4179-4180 of 2023)
AUGUST 23, 2023
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI AND 
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Election petition if liable to be dismissed 
by allowing the Or.7, r.11 application for non-compliance of s.83(1)(c), 
Representation of People Act, 1951.
Representation of People Act, 1951 – s.83(1)(c) – Compliance, if 
mandatory:
Held: The requirement to ﬁ le an aﬃ  davit under the proviso to s.83(1)
(c) is not mandatory – It is suﬃ  cient if there is substantial compliance – As 
the defect is curable, an opportunity may be granted to ﬁ le the necessary 
aﬃ  davit – In the instant case, the election petition contained an aﬃ  davit and 
also a veriﬁ cation – In this very aﬃ  davit, the election petitioner had sworn 
on oath that the paragraphs where he raised allegations of corrupt practice 
are true to the best of his knowledge – Though there was no separate and 
an independent aﬃ  davit with respect to the allegations of corrupt practice, 
there was substantial compliance of the requirements u/s. 83(1)(c) – No 
case made out by the appellant-returned candidate for interfering with the 
judgment of the High Court. [Paras 14, 15 and 17]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
T.M. Jacob v. C. Poulose (1999) 4 SCC 274 : [1999] 2 SCR 659 – 
followed.
G.M. Siddeshwar v. Prasanna Kumar (2013) 4 SCC 776 : [2013] 4 
SCR 1107; A. Manju v. Prajwal Revanna (2022) 3 SCC 269 – relied on.
[2023] 11 S.C.R. 392 : 2023 INSC 762
392
393
Ch. Subbarao v. Member, Election Tribunal, Hyderabad & Ors. 
AIR 1964 SC 1027 : [1964] SCR 213; Pukhrem Sharatchandra Singh v. 
Mairembam Prithviraj @ Prithibiraj Singh 2016 SCC OnLine Mani 30; 
Mairembam Prithviraj @ Prithviraj Singh v. Pukhrem Sharatchandra Singh 
(2017) 2 SCC 487 : [2016] 9 SCR 687; Lok Prahari through its General 
Secretary v. Union of India & Ors. (2018) 4 SCC 699 : [2018] 2 SCR 892; 
P.A. Mohammed Riyas v. M.K. Raghavan (2012) 5 SCC 511 : [2012] 4 SCR 
56 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 4179-4180 
of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.04.2023 of the High Court of 
Manipur at Imphal in MC(El. Pet.) Nos. 67 and 135 of 2022.
Appearances:
Devadatt Kamat, Sr. Adv., Ms. Rajkumari Banju, David Ahongsangbam, 
B R Sharma, S Gunabanta Meitei, Mohan Singh, Rajesh Inamdar, Javedur 
Rahman, Harsh Pandey, Advs. for the Appellant.
Shadan Farasat, Ms. Warisha Farasat, Aman Naqvi, Harshit Anand, 
Ms. Hrishika Jain, Ms. Natasha Maheshwari, Ms. Mreganka Kukreja, Advs. 
for the Respondent.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J. 
1. This appeal arises out of the decision of the High Court of Manipur1
dated 11.04.2023, whereby the returned candidate’s application under Order 
7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19082, to dismiss the election 
petition ﬁ led by the unsuccessful candidate on the ground that it lacks 
1 
Hereinafter “the High Court”.
2 
Hereinafter, “the CPC”.
THANGJAM ARUNKUMAR v. YUMKHAM ERABOT SINGH 
& ORS.
394
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 11 S.C.R.
material particulars and is in violation of mandatory requirements of law was 
rejected by the High Court. The returned candidate is the Appellant before us.
Facts:
2. The short and precise facts necessary for our consideration are 
as follows. The Appellant is the returned candidate to the XII Manipur 
Legislative Assembly, having been elected from the 15-Wangkhei Assembly 
Constituency. The Respondent No.1, the unsuccessful candidate moved 
Election Petition No. 24 of 20223 alleging violations under Sections 80, 
80A, 81, 84 read with Sections 100(1)(d)(iv) and 101 of the Representation 
of People Act, 19514. The election petitioner prayed that the election of the 
Appellant be held void and also to declare him to be the elected candidate. 
It is important to note that the election petition alleges corrupt practice, in as 
much as the petitioner pleaded that the returned candidate has not provided 
the material particulars with respect to a ﬁ nancial transaction relating to 
ﬁ nancing a loan.
3. In response to the election petition, the Appellant moved two 
applications under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC and 
under Section 86 of the Act seeking dismissal of the election petition on 
the grounds of – (i) non-disclosure of cause of action/triable issue
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.