TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a breach of paragraphs 13 and 18 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in the course of symbol allotment, amounts to non-compliance with the Constitution, the Act or rules or orders made thereunder so as to attract section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951; (ii) Whether the averments in paragraphs 4 to 18 of the election petition were liable to be struck out for non-disclosure of material facts or for want of sufficient particulars.
Issue (i): Whether a breach of paragraphs 13 and 18 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, in the course of symbol allotment, amounts to non-compliance with the Constitution, the Act or rules or orders made thereunder so as to attract section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Analysis: The Symbols Order was held to be an order made under the Act, being issued under article 324 of the Constitution read with rules 5 and 10 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 and intended to regulate allotment and reservation of symbols as an integral part of the electoral process. The Court rejected the view that a breach of paragraph 13 or paragraph 18 could not fall within section 100(1)(d)(iv). It held that symbol allotment is an important stage of the election machinery and that directions issued by the Election Commission under the Symbols Order operate within the statutory framework governing elections.
Conclusion: Yes. Breach of the Symbols Order, including paragraphs 13 and 18, can constitute non-compliance within section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Issue (ii): Whether the averments in paragraphs 4 to 18 of the election petition were liable to be struck out for non-disclosure of material facts or for want of sufficient particulars.
Analysis: The Court distinguished between material facts and particulars. Material facts are those necessary to constitute a complete cause of action, while particulars serve only to furnish further detail. An election petition is not required to anticipate the defence or plead facts exclusively within the respondent's knowledge. The High Court's approach in demanding disclosure of the circumstances in which the Election Commission issued its directions was held erroneous. No finding justified striking out the pleadings under Order VI rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the petition disclosed a sufficient cause of action on the pleaded facts.
Conclusion: No. The challenged averments were not liable to be struck out on the ground of non-disclosure of material facts or insufficiency of particulars.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the High Court's order striking out paragraphs 4 to 18 was set aside, and the election petition was directed to proceed to trial.
Ratio Decidendi: An election petition must plead the material facts constituting a complete cause of action, but it need not plead evidence or matters within the respondent's knowledge; and a breach of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 may amount to non-compliance with the Act for purposes of section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
TaxTMI 
