VIRENDER NATH GAUTAM versus SATPAL SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 413 · Decided: 08-12-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. THAKKER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

'. 
VIRENDER NATH GAUTAM 
A 
v. 
SATPAL SINGH AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 8, 2006 
[C.K. THAKKERAND R.V. RA VEENDRAN, JJ.] 
B 
Representation of the People Act, 1951 
Section 83(1 )(a)-Election Petition-Contents of-Material facts pleaded 
as required by Section 83 (I) of Act read with Order VJJ, Rule 1 l(a) of Code C 
of Civil Procedure, 1908 and cause of action disclosed-Held-At stage of 
consideration maintainability of such a petition cannot be dismissed by 
considering correctness of allegations and evidence in support of avetments 
by entering into merits of case which is permissible only at stage of trial of 
petition. 
D 
Section 83(1)(a)-Election Petition-Contents of-Disclosure of material 
facts-Allegation of double voting-Held-When law prevents a person from 
exercising right of vote more than once and it is alleged that there was double 
voting in respect of certaifl persons, 'allegation' is complete-Whether election-
petitioner is able to prove that a/legation is matter of evidence which can E 
be considered only at stage of trial-Also, whether voting papers were issued 
twice, and those voters would have polled in favour of returned candidate 
is immaterial-On such grounds, it cannot be said that material fact about 
allegation regarding dou_ble voting had not been s_tated in Election Petition_ 
requiring it to be dismissed 
F 
Sections 83(1)(a), (b) and 86-Allegations about improper and illegal 
reception and acceptance of votes-Held-Allegations did not pertain to corrupt 
practice and election petitioner was required to state in Election Petition only 
material facts and it was not necessary to set forth full particulars thereof-
Petition could not be dismissed on this ground especially as it could be qmended G 
or amplified under Section 86 of the Act Section 83 (l)(b) found inapplicable. 
Objections to elections-Taken in election petition after election was 
J 
over and result declared-Consideration of-Held-They could not be 
dismissed by invoking doctrine of estoppel. 
413 
II 
414 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. JO S.C.R. 
A 
Words and phrases-Material facts-Jn context of Section 83 (1) (a) of 
Representation of people Act, 1951. 
Words and phrases-Distinction between facta probanda and facta 
probantia. 
B 
Appellant and first respondent were candidates in an election to a 
State Legislative Assembly, wherein latter was declared successful by a 
small margin of votes. Aggrieved by this, appellant filed an Election 
Petition before High Court under Representation of the People Act, 1951 
alleging (a) in para 8, that 188 votes were counted in spite of being invalid, 
C and since the mar:gin of victory was only 51 votes, their counting materially 
affected the result of the election (b) in para 8(i), that 37 votes of dead persons 
had been cast, provided their names, death certificates of 36 persons, and 
regarding the remaining one, Death Report issued by the Senior Medical 
Officer, Zonal hospital (c) in para 8 (ii), that there was double voting by 60 
· voters and provided details of those voters; it was also stated that out of 120 
D votes (instead of 60) 104 votes were cast at booth Nos. 48 and 49 which were 
in the native village of the first respondent (d) in para 8(iii), that votes 19 
persons were void as they had voted in two constituencies, named those 
constituencies, specified booth numbers where those votes were cast, and 
details of voters (d) in para 8(iv), that six persons whose names were mentioned 
in the Petition had voted twice thereby 12 votes had been polled and all of 
E them should be treated as void. 
Respondent filed a written statement controverting allegations and 
averments in the Election Petition. He also raised preliminary objection 
as to maintainability of petition contending inter alia that (i) petition lacked 
F material facts and full particulars as required by law, the allegations 
therein were vague and since the petition did not disclose cause of action, 
it was liable to be dismissed on that ground alone (ii) as no objection had 
been taken by the appellant at an appropriate stage, it was not open to 
him to raise such contentions after the election was over and result was 
declared. 
G 
The High Court found that the appellant had not disclosed all material 
facts as (a) in para 8(i), there was nothing to show as to how many of those 37 
votes were cast in favour of the first respondent, who cast them, and it was 
not his case that he was unaware of death of those

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