TITLE- Failure in Pleading Facts Concerning Corrupt Practice Is Fatal To Election Petition.

CASE NAME- Senthilbalaji V. vs A.P. Geetha & Ors.

CITATION- CIVIL APPEAL NOS.3895-3896 OF 2023

COURT- Supreme Court of India

BENCH- JUSTICE.- Abhay S. Oka, Rajesh Bindal

DECIDED ON- 19 May, 2023

CASE LAWS:

Jyoti Basu & Others vs Debi Ghosal & Others on 26 February, 1982 (1982 AIR 983)

Jagan Nath vs Jaswant Singh And Others on 20 January, 1954(1954 AIR 210)

BRIEF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY-

1. A. P. Geetha who was the first respondent filed the election petition under section 81 of

the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RP Act) before the Madras High Court.

2. She wants to know the validity of the constituent assembly of Aravakurichi in Tamil

Nadu where Senthilbalaji V. Was declared as an elected candidate.

3. Further she claimed that the manner of election was improper and the elections held on

the basis of corrupt practices.

4. Against this petition the appellant also filed an application before the same court refusing

all the allegations.

5. Further he stated that the part stating the practice of corruption which is mentioned in the

election petition shall be deleted.

6. An application of appellant is rejected by the High court thus he filed an appeal to the

Supreme Court against this decision.

ISSUES

1. Whether the nomination of the appellant was improperly accepted?

2. Whether corrupt practices have been committed by the appellant or by other persons with

his consent?

RATIO

While giving the judgement on this case the Supreme Court has taken into consideration the

following statements:

● Firstly the court stated that the respondent failed to clarify how the appellant was

debarred from contesting elections.

● The court further said that it is not disclosed by the respondent that on which ground the

disqualification was made.

● The bench added that if they deem fit they can strike any argument or fact which is not

necessary for the case. Also the facts required were missing and the facts mentioned were

very vague.

● The court further said that there was no reason to call the documents which include

emails, videos, pictures while rejecting the application.

● The court directed to delete some paragraphs which were irrelevant according to the court

as per Rule 16 Order VI of CPC.

● Thus the Supreme Court set aside the order given by the High Court of Madras and

allowed the application filed by appellant.

HELD

The Supreme Court has held that the election petition is invalidated if significant facts regarding

alleged corrupt practices are not pleaded. The Supreme Court mentioned that the procedures

effectively take on quasi-criminal characteristics when accusations of corrupt behaviour are

alleged upon an elected official in the present petition. Furthermore, the results of such a petition

can remove a publicly elected representative of the people, which is a very dangerous event.

Therefore, the petition must be rejected at the threshold itself if the obligation to state material

facts about the basis of corrupt practices is not met.