V.NARAYANASWAMY versus C.P. THIRUNAVUKKARASU

Citation: [2000] 1 S.C.R. 292 · Decided: 19-01-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
8 
V. NARA Y ANASW AMY 
v. 
C.P. THIRlJNAVLKKARASU 
JANt:ARY lY, 2000 
[DR. A.S. ANAND, C.J., D.P. WADHWA A~D 
S. RAJE!'.DRA BABU, JJ.] 
Representation of the People Act, 19S 1 : 
C 
Sections 123U)(B) & (2), JOO(l)(b) & (d) and 79(d). 
Election--Corrnpt practice-Bribery and undue influenc~lection to 
Rajya Sabha-Allegation that MLAs belonging to a political party other than 
the election petitioner's were entertained in five Mar hotels by the Chief 
Ministef'-The Chief Minister belonged to the returned candidate's political 
D parf>--No allegations that the election petitioner was prevented from meeting 
any of those MLAs-Further allegarion that Government appointed Chainnen 
for five State-owned Corporations after the commencement of the election 
proces~--But none of the nominees belonged to the election petitioner's 
party-Held: In the circumstances of the case, allegation of bribery and undue 
E influence not established. 
Section 83( J,(c}- Election-Election petition-Affidavit-Verification 
o:f Held : Has to confonn not only to the fonn pre,cribed in substance but 
also must contain particulars as· required by RuleJ"-()therwise petition is 
liable to be rejected at the threshold--Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, 
F R.94-A. 
Sections 81, 83 and 86-Election-Election petition-Pleading~-Re­
quirements of-Held : Cause of action must be disclosed-The court cannot 
dissect pleadings into several parts and consider whether each one of them 
G discloses a cause of action--Petition has to be considered as· a whole-There 
cannot be a partial rejection of the petition. 
Sections 81 and 83-Election-Election petition--Comtpt practice-Re-
quirement~-Held : Petition must be l·uppurted by affidavit which should 
disclose source of infonnation- -Petitioner must state which allegations are 
H true to his knowledge and which to his belief-Allegation must be clearly and 
292 
() 
' '-" ' • 
V. NARA YANASWAMY v. C.P. TIIIRUNAVUKKARASU 
293 
precisely stated-It should not be open to two equally possible inferences-It A 
has to be specifically alleged that the comcpt practice is committed with the 
consent of the returned candidate and that a particular electoral right o{ a 
person is ajf ected. 
Sections 81, 83 ( 1) ( c) and 86-Election-Election petitio11--Mate rial 
facts and material particulars-Difference between-Held: Failure to plead 
B 
material facts is fat al to the election petition-Whereas absence of material 
particulars can be cured subsequently-But despite every opportunity to supply 
the material particulars the petitioner has not done so, the petition has to be 
rejected-However, no duty is cast on the High Court to direct suo motzt the 
furnishing of better particulars-In the circumstances of the case, the petition 
C 
lacked material facts, material particulars, was defective in verification and 
the affidavit not in the f onn prescribed. 
Hence, petition liable to be rejected-Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, 
Or. 6 R. 16 and Or. 7 R. 11. 
Doctrines : Doctrine of Substantial Compliance-Doctrine of 
Curability-Discussed. 
The appellant-defeated candidate filed an election petition before the 
High Court challenging the election of the respondent-returned candidate 
to the Rajya Sabha. The appellant alleged that the election of the respon· 
dent was vitiated due to corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 
123(1)(B)(b) and Section lllO(l)(d) of the Representation of the People 
Act, 1951 committed by the respondent, his agents and other persons with 
the consent of the respondent. 
The appellant alleged the following corrupt practices committed by 
the respondent :· 
1. The respondent was proposed by the then Chief Minister belong· 
ing to the respondent's political party. For the second set of application 
D 
E 
F 
the name of the respondent was proposed by the Minister in the Govern· G 
ment of the Union Territory. The proposals were seconded respectively by 
Deputy Sp~aker and Parliamentary Secretary to the Chief Minister. All 
these four persons acted as agents for the respondent in the election. 
2. After the commencement of the election process the Government 
of the Vnion Territory announced appointment of Chairmen for five 
H 
294 
SUPRi:'ME COURT REPORTS 
[2000) l S.C.R. 
A State-owned Corporations but none of the nominees wets from the 
appellant's party which amounted to exercise of undue influence to secure 
the votes of the rtlLAs, particularly the MLAs who were nominated as 
Chairmen. 
3. After the 

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