1986 (4) TMI 352 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court affirms dismissal of election petition for non-compliance

Azhar Hussain Versus Rajiv Gandhi

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to dismiss the election petition due to non-compliance with Section 83 of the Representation of People ... - Issues Involved:1. Compliance with Section 83 of the Representation of People Act.2. Dismissal of the election petition at the threshold.3. Justification of dismissal by the High Court on specific grounds of alleged corrupt practices.4. Validity of dismissal under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC.Summary:Issue 1: Compliance with Section 83 of the Representation of People ActThe appellant's election petition was dismissed for non-compliance with the mandatory requirement to furnish material facts and particulars as per Section 83 of the Representation of People Act. The High Court held that the petition did not disclose a cause of action. The appellant contended that the Act does not provide for dismissal of an election petition for non-compliance with Section 83, as Section 86 of the Act, which provides for summary dismissal, does not refer to Section 83. However, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's view, citing precedents that an election petition can be summarily dismissed if it does not furnish a cause of action or comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 83.Issue 2: Dismissal of the election petition at the thresholdThe appellant argued that the powers to reject an election petition summarily should not be exercised at the threshold but only after recording evidence. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that the purpose of such powers is to ensure that meaningless litigation does not occupy the court's time. The Court emphasized that the litigation should be terminated at the earliest if it is bound to prove abortive, to relieve the elected representative from the psychological burden of litigation.Issue 3: Justification of dismissal by the High Court on specific grounds of alleged corrupt practicesThe High Court dismissed the election petition on several grounds, including:- Ground I: The petition did not disclose material facts or particulars regarding the alleged corrupt practice involving a government servant, Mr. Beg. The Supreme Court upheld this view, stating that the petition failed to mention who procured Mr. Beg's services, how, and with what consent. - Ground II(i): The petition lacked material facts and particulars regarding the slogans allegedly painted by the respondent's workers. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that the petition was vague and did not disclose a cause of action. - Ground II(ii): The petition did not provide the time, date, and place of the speeches delivered by the respondent. The Supreme Court found the High Court's view justified. - Ground II(iii): The petition failed to produce a copy of the poster it referenced, and lacked material facts regarding the distribution of the poster. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision. - Ground XIII: The petition did not show that the publication of a book was done with the respondent's consent. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's view. - Ground XIV: The petition did not specify who distributed the pamphlets, when, where, and how. The Supreme Court found the High Court's view justified. - Ground XV: The petition lacked material facts regarding the printing, publication, and circulation of another pamphlet. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision.Issue 4: Validity of dismissal under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPCThe appellant contended that the High Court should have 'rejected' the petition under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC instead of 'dismissing' it. The Supreme Court found this contention insignificant, as the petition was filed on the last day of the limitation period. Whether the petition was 'rejected' or 'dismissed' made no difference, as a fresh petition could not have been presented within the limitation period.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision to dismiss the election petition for non-compliance with Section 83 of the Representation of People Act and for not disclosing a cause of action. The Court emphasized the importance of terminating meaningless litigation at the earliest to allow elected representatives to focus on their duties. The appeal was dismissed with no costs throughout.