Election petition recrimination cannot bypass the special statutory scheme where no further declaration is sought.

In an election petition, the Supreme Court majority held that the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is a special, self-contained code, so recrimination under Section 97 is available only when the petition includes the additional declaration contemplated by Section 84. Because Section 87 applies the Code of Civil Procedure only subject to the Act, Order VIII Rule 6A could not be used to introduce counter-claims or recriminatory pleas that would bypass the statutory scheme. In the absence of a prayer for further declaration, such pleadings were beyond permissible defence and liable to be struck off. The dissent treated the pleas as a defence to recount rather than recrimination.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in an election petition where no additional declaration is sought that the election petitioner or any other candidate has been duly elected, the returned candidate can raise pleas in the written statement by way of recrimination or counter-claim under Order VIII Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and whether such pleas are liable to be struck out under Order VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The majority held that the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is a special and self-contained code, and that Section 97 permits recrimination only when the election petition contains the additional claim contemplated by Section 84. Section 87 makes the Code of Civil Procedure applicable only so far as may be, and therefore the general provision for counter-claim in Order VIII Rule 6A cannot override the special scheme of the Act. In the absence of a prayer for a further declaration, the returned candidate could not introduce counter-claims or recriminatory pleas that would effectively bypass the statutory restriction in Section 97. The impugned pleadings were therefore held to be beyond permissible defence in the election petition and liable to be struck off.

Conclusion: The counter-claim/recrimination pleaded by the returned candidate was not maintainable, and the order striking off paragraphs 22 to 31 from the written statement was upheld.

Dissenting Opinion: The dissenting view held that the impugned pleas were only a valid defence to a general recount and not recrimination within Section 97. It further held that, where recount is ordered, it should be a general recount covering all votes so that the true majority of valid votes can be ascertained, and that Order VIII Rule 6A could support such a defence.

---