CASE NAME: Radheshyam Yadav verses Sarada Prasad Nayak.
CASE NUMBER: Elpet No. 14 of 2024
COURT: High Court of Orissa at Cuttack.
DATE: 6 February 2026
QUORUM: Justice Sashikanta Mishra
FACTS:
The court petition claiming to argument against the election of the returned candidate Sarada Prasad Nayak in the 12-Rourkela Assembly Constituency was filed by the petitioner, Radheshyam Yadav on the basis of election petition under the Section 80 read with Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The petition contended non-admission of nomination on the basis of false and incomplete disclosure in statutory Form-26 affidavit and further contended that the conduct of corrupt practices in regard to the polling exercise and electronic voting systems were committed with references to photographic evidence of alleged misconduct in connection with the polling exercise. The respondent moved preliminary objections under the application of Section 86(1) to seek an objection on the grounds that the petition did not disclose material facts as per Section 83(1)(a), did not provide full particulars of corrupt practices as required by Section 83(1)(b) and that it did not comply with Section 81(3) as it did not furnish true copies of the pleadings with annexures such as photographs which are an integral part of pleadings. The Court had to then look on the issue of whether such non compliant statutory non-adherence made the petition liable to dismissal for the threshold.
ISSUES:
- Whether the petition presented material facts as required by Section 83 (1) (a) of the Representation of the People Act,1951.
- Did allegations of corrupt practice meet the full particulars requirement in Section 83(1)(b).
- Failure to annex and serve documents despite being in compliance with Section 81(3).
- Whether such defects were allowed to be dismissed under compulsion or not obligatory in terms of Section 86(1).
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
- The procedure to challenge an election is given statutory rights by section 80 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 which gives the right to challenge the election only by an election petition that is filed within the confines of the Act. Section 81 regulates the presentation and service of such petitions and in sub-section (3) there is the requirement that the respondents will be provided with true copies and attachments that may have been relied on by the petitioner.
- Section 83(1)(a) states that an election petition should include a statement of material facts on which the claim is founded concisely whereas Section 83(1)(b) stipulates that where the claim concerns corrupt practice the entire particulars must be given so that the respondent is aware of the precise case to be encountered.
- This is due to Section 86(1), which grants and provides the High Court with power and responsibility to strike out an election petition, which fails to satisfy the requirements enacted by the statutes in 81, 82, or 117 strengthening procedural sanity in election disputes.
- Section 100 specifies the list of reasons why the election can be declared void such as improper acceptance of nomination and commission of corrupt practices. Section 123 gives an understanding of what is corrupt practice in the electoral law.
- Section 36 associates with the examination and acceptance of nomination papers by the Returning Officer and is a foundation of challenging improper acceptance against election challenges.
ARGUMENTS
PETITIONER :
The petitioner also argued that the election of the returned candidate was subject to declaration of invalidity under Section 100 on the basis of improperly accepting the nomination under Section 36 because of false disclosure of stats in the statutory affidavit. They made an argument that disclosure requirements are necessary in ensuring that elections become transparent and that the electorates are aware. The petitioner also stated that there were corrupt practices in violation of Section 123 and provided that there was photographic evidence showing that there was electoral misconduct. It was argued that the petition met the requirement of pleading in Section 83 and that procedural formalities with reference to copies or annexures ought not to work against substantive justice in situations that reveal the grounds in Section 100.
RESPONDENT:
The respondent argued that the requirement of the statutory requirements concerning election petition was binding and that the current petition did not reveal material facts as required by Section 83(1)(a) and therefore did not have a valid cause of action. It was also asserted that the charges of corrupt practice were imprecise and lacked full details as stipulated in Section 83(1) (b). Respondent replied that the photographs relied upon had not been annexed and no copies had been served and therefore, this contravened Section 81(3), making the copies not true copies at law. In this respect, as provided under Section 86(1), the petition was obligatory dismissed without getting into trial over motives.
ANALYSIS:
The Court once again stated that election controversies were purely statutory matters and had to abide strictly by the terms of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. It was based on established precedents declaring that the fact of omission of material facts are at the point of maintainability. The Court believed that the petition did not include factual details that were crucial, and thus, it was not able to meet Section 83(1)(a).
Considering the corrupt practice allegations, the Court pointed out that the allegations are taken very seriously, and they should be pleaded in specifics, failure to which the specifics are not provided, thus, failing the Section 83(1)(b).
Regarding annexures, the Court noted that pleadings which contain documents that are part and parcel should be annexed in forms of copy that are being served to respondents. Their omission to supply them infringed upon Section 81(3).
Considering these shortcomings, the Court decided that Section 86(1) mandated the petition be dismissed because compliance with statutes is not a discretionary matter but a mandatory issue.
JUDGEMENT:
The High Court rejected the election petition on its doorsteps on ground of failure to meet required mandatory statutory regulations as derogated under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The Court deemed no material facts, no full particulars and failure to produce true copies with annexures material made the petition not maintainable.
CONCLUSION:
This ruling upholds the rigid procedural structure that applies to the litigation of an election and that of the extreme importance of accurate pleadings and of compliance with statutory obligations. The ruling shows that courts should not be lax in obligatory rules in election lawsuits and claims touching on electoral legitimacy would need to be buttressed by full material facts and records. This decision therefore upholds process discipline and protects the purity of the electoral adjudication.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY: TANUSH RAJ
