A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case primarily deals with whether an election petition alleging corrupt practices and improper acceptance of nomination should be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC when the petitioner fails to plead material facts as required by Section 83 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (RP Act). The appellant, Karim Uddin Barbhuiya, challenged the Gauhati High Court’s dismissal of his application for rejecting an election petition filed by Aminul Haque Laskar. The petition alleged false declarations, suppression of financial liabilities, and misrepresentation of facts, amounting to corrupt practices under Section 123 of the RP Act and improper nomination acceptance under Section 100 of the RP Act. The Supreme Court analyzed the requirements for maintaining an election petition and reaffirmed that lack of material facts or incomplete cause of action mandates rejection of the petition.

Keywords: Corrupt practice, undue influence, improper nomination acceptance, material facts, incomplete cause of action.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title:
Karim Uddin Barbhuiya v. Aminul Haque Laskar & Ors.

ii) Case Number:
Civil Appeal No. 6282 of 2023

iii) Judgement Date:
08 April 2024

iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum:
Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Bela M. Trivedi

vi) Author:
Justice Bela M. Trivedi

vii) Citation:
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 523; 2024 INSC 282

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Order VII Rule 11, CPC
• Sections 81, 83, 87, 100, and 123 of the Representation of People Act, 1951

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case (if any):
None explicitly stated.

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects:
Election law, Civil procedure.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The appeal stemmed from an election petition filed by Aminul Haque Laskar challenging the validity of the election of Karim Uddin Barbhuiya to the Assam Legislative Assembly. The petitioner alleged that the appellant made false declarations in the affidavit accompanying his nomination, suppressed material facts about his educational qualifications, financial liabilities, and provident fund defaults. The appellant sought rejection of the petition under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, arguing that the pleadings lacked material facts necessary to disclose a cause of action under the RP Act. The Gauhati High Court dismissed the appellant’s application, prompting this appeal to the Supreme Court.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Election Notification and Nomination Filing: The General Elections to the Assam Legislative Assembly were notified on 5 March 2021, and the appellant filed his nomination on 11 March 2021, supported by an affidavit in Form 26 as per the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961.

2. Polling and Results: The appellant won the election for Constituency No. 10, Sonai, securing 71,937 votes, whereas the respondent garnered 52,283 votes.

3. Allegations in Election Petition:

   • False declaration of educational qualification (Bachelor of Arts).
   • Non-disclosure of financial liabilities, including a cash credit loan and provident fund dues as a partner of M/s Allied Concern.
   • Claims of misrepresentation amounting to undue influence under Section 123(2) RP Act.

4. Application for Rejection: The appellant contended that the petition lacked material facts, as required under Section 83(1)(a) RP Act, and sought dismissal under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

5. High Court’s Order: The High Court refused to reject the election petition, finding sufficient triable issues, leading to this appeal.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the election petition disclosed a cause of action based on Sections 100 and 123 of the RP Act.
2. Whether failure to plead material facts and particulars warranted rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The appellant’s counsel argued that the election petition lacked material facts necessary to constitute a cause of action under Section 100 RP Act. Mere vague and bald allegations could not suffice for maintaining the petition.

2. It was contended that allegations of corrupt practices under Section 123 RP Act lacked the required particulars as mandated by Section 83(1)(b) RP Act.

3. The appellant emphasized that failure to object in writing to the nomination acceptance before the Returning Officer precluded claims of improper acceptance under Section 100(1)(d)(i) RP Act.

4. Reliance was placed on precedents, including Kanimozhi Karunanidhi v. A. Santhana Kumar (2023), which reiterated the necessity of precise pleadings in election disputes.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The respondent’s counsel maintained that the appellant’s affidavit in Form 26 contained material misrepresentations and omissions, constituting corrupt practices under Section 123 RP Act.

2. It was argued that the improper acceptance of the appellant’s nomination affected the election’s outcome, as required under Section 100(1)(d)(i) RP Act.

3. The counsel submitted that the petition disclosed a cause of action, warranting a full trial rather than rejection at the threshold.

H) JUDGMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi

1. Material Facts Requirement: Election petitions must disclose precise and specific material facts per Section 83 RP Act. Failure to do so results in rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

2. Corrupt Practices: Allegations of undue influence under Section 123 RP Act require detailed particulars. Mere general allegations are insufficient.

3. Improper Nomination Acceptance: For claims under Section 100(1)(d)(i) RP Act, it must be shown how improper acceptance materially affected the election result.

b. Obiter Dicta

The Court underscored the statutory nature of election disputes and emphasized strict compliance with procedural requirements under the RP Act.

c. Guidelines

1. Pleadings in election petitions must comply with Sections 81, 83, and 87 RP Act.
2. Material facts and particulars should substantiate allegations of corrupt practices or improper nomination.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment reinforces procedural rigor in election disputes. It underscores the importance of precise pleadings and material facts in maintaining an election petition. The dismissal of vague or speculative claims protects electoral integrity while ensuring a fair trial process.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred:

1. Bhagwati Prasad Dixit v. Rajeev Gandhi, [1986] 2 SCR 823.
2. Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi, [1986] Supp SCC 315.
3. Kanimozhi Karunanidhi v. A. Santhana Kumar, [2023] 4 SCR 798.
4. Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal v. Rajiv Gandhi, [1987] Supp SCC 93.

b. Important Statutes Referred:

1. Representation of People Act, 1951.
2. Conduct of Election Rules, 1961.
3. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.