Case title: Karim Uddin Barbhuiya Vs Aminul Haque Laskar & Ors.
Case no.: Civil Appeal No. 6282 of 2023
Decision on: April 8th, 2024
Quoram: Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Bela M. Trivedi
Facts of the case
On March 5, 2021, General Election to the Legislative Assembly of Assam was notified by the Election Commission of India (ECI) and accordingly, the appellant Karim Uddin Barbhuiya filed his nomination papers as a candidate of All India United Democratic Front (AIUDF) along with the Declaration, by way of an affidavit in Form-26 of The Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. On April 1, the election for the Legislative Assembly Constituency no. 10, Sonai was concluded and the appellant secured 71,937 votes out of total votes polled, while the respondent Aminul Haque Laskar secured 52,283 votes in his favour.
On June 4, the respondent filed the Election Petition before the Gauhati High Court under Section 100(1)(b) and Section 100(1)(d)(i) of RP Act questioning the election of the appellant, mainly making four allegations – (a) false declaration of educational qualification of B.A. (b) suppression of the educational qualification of Diploma in Engineering (c) suppression of bank loan details of M/s. Allied Concern and (d) suppression of un-liquidated provident fund dues. The High Court issued notice in the said Election Petition. Subsequently, the appellant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC read with Section 86 of the RP Act for rejection of the Election Petition. However, the High Court through an impugned judgment dismissed the application filed by the appellant and hence, the same was contested before the Apex Court.
Submissions on behalf of the Appellants
The Counsel, Mr. Kapil Sibal appearing for the appellant vehemently submitted that the respondent has sought to upset the election results by filing the baseless, motivated and malafide election petition, based on mere bald allegations that the information disclosed in Form No. 26 was inaccurate. He submitted that the pleadings in Election petition are not the averments of material facts but are facts based speculations which do not disclose any triable issue. He further submitted that it neither discloses a complete cause of action, nor contain all the “material facts” as required under Section 83(1)(a). It also does not plead “full particulars” of the alleged corrupt practice of undue influence, as required under Section 81(1)(b) of the RP Act.
The Counsel submitted that the allegations and averments made in the Election Petition could not constitute “undue influence” much less “corrupt practices” as contemplated under Section 123, for declaring the Election to be void under Section 100 of the RP Act. He relied on the decision in case of Kanimozhi Karunanidhi Vs A. Santhana Kumar and Ors and prayed to dismiss the Election Petition at the threshold.
Submissions on behalf of the Respondents
The Counsel submitted that the election of the appellant is liable to be set aside firstly on the ground that the nomination paper was improperly accepted, as the affidavit contained false statements and secondly, on the ground that the appellant having indulged in corrupt practices, failed to make the disclosures as required by the RP Act. He submitted that if the “corrupt practice” is alleged under Section 100(1)(b), it is not necessary to state that the “corrupt practice” has materially affected the outcome of the election. Thus, he contended that the High Court was right in rejecting the application of the appellant under Order VII Rule 11, CPC.
Court’s Analysis and Judgement
The Court delved into the intricacies of relevant provisions of the RP Act. At the outset, it noted that as per the well settled legal position, right to contest election or to question the election by means of an Election Petition is neither common law nor fundamental right, but only a statutory right governed by the statutory provisions of the RP Act. It reiterated that in an Election Petition the pleadings have to be precise, specific and unambiguous, and if it fails to disclose a cause of action, it is liable to be dismissed. Thus, noted that the cause of action in questioning the validity of election must relate to the grounds specified in Section 100 of the RP Act.
The Bench considered the allegations made by the respondent and examined the submissions made by both the parties with reference to the legal provisions to ascertain the allegations. With regard to allegations on suppression and misrepresentation of facts it stated that the same did not fall within the definition of “Corrupt practice” of “undue influence” as envisaged in Section 123(2) of the RP Act.
It pointed out that a charge of “Corrupt practice” is easy to level but difficult to prove because it’s criminal charge nature and has to be proved beyond doubt. Accordingly, ruled that the standard of proof required for establishing a charge of “Corrupt practice” is the same as is applicable to a criminal charge. Thus, it asserted that the allegation of corrupt practice have to be precise, specific, and unambiguous, whether it is bribery or undue influence or other corrupt practices as stated in Section 123 of the Act. It said that if it is corrupt practice in the nature of undue influence, the pleadings must state the full particulars with regard to the direct or indirect interference or attempt to interfere by the candidate, with the free exercise of any electoral right as stated in Section 123(2) of the Act.
The Supreme Court in light of the above analysis held that if the allegations contained in Election Petition do not set out grounds as contemplated in Section 100 and do not conform to the requirement of Section 81 and 83 of the Act, then it is liable to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of CPC. Therefore, it dismissed the Election Petition filed by the respondent before the High Court challenging the Assam Assembly Election of AIUDF leader.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Keerthi K
