Pre-nomination conduct cannot itself prove corrupt practice; evidentiary documents need not be served as pleadings.

Allegations based solely on conduct before a person legally acquires candidate status cannot, by themselves, constitute corrupt practice under election law, because candidature is confined to the date of valid nomination. The remaining pleadings were not rejected, as a pleading is not liable to strike-out merely because it may appear weak; it must disclose no viable claim or be plainly frivolous, vexatious, or scandalous, and a triable issue remained. Non-supply of cited notes and a cassette did not amount to failure to serve a true copy where the materials were relied on only as evidence and were not integral parts of the pleadings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether averments relating to a period anterior to the date on which the candidate legally acquired that status could constitute allegations of corrupt practice; (ii) Whether the remaining pleadings were so vague, lacking in material particulars, frivolous or vexatious as to disclose no reasonable cause of action and justify rejection; (iii) Whether non-supply of the cited notes and cassette amounted to non-compliance with the requirement of serving a true copy of the election petition.

Issue (i): Whether averments relating to a period anterior to the date on which the candidate legally acquired that status could constitute allegations of corrupt practice.

Analysis: The substituted definition of "candidate" under Section 79(b) confined the statutory notion of candidature to the date of valid nomination. Since the corrupt practice provisions operate with reference to the acts of a candidate, his election agent, or persons acting with consent, allegations founded solely on conduct before that date cannot, by themselves, amount to corrupt practice.

Conclusion: The pre-nomination averments could not be relied upon to establish corrupt practice and were held incapable of doing so.

Issue (ii): Whether the remaining pleadings were so vague, lacking in material particulars, frivolous or vexatious as to disclose no reasonable cause of action and justify rejection.

Analysis: The concepts of cause of action, material facts and particulars are distinct. A pleading is not liable to rejection merely because the case appears weak; it must disclose no viable claim or be plainly scandalous, frivolous or vexatious. On the pleaded averments, a triable issue remained and the court found no basis for striking them out at that stage.

Conclusion: The challenge to the remaining pleadings failed and the High Court's refusal to strike them out was upheld.

Issue (iii): Whether non-supply of the cited notes and cassette amounted to non-compliance with the requirement of serving a true copy of the election petition.

Analysis: A document must be supplied only if it forms an integral part of the pleadings by incorporation reference. Where the contents are set out in the petition and the document is relied on merely as evidence, its non-supply does not attract dismissal. The cited materials were treated as evidentiary references rather than integral pleadings.

Conclusion: Non-supply of the notes and cassette did not warrant dismissal of the petition.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the limited extent of excluding pre-candidature allegations from consideration as corrupt practice, while the remaining objections were rejected and the election petition was otherwise left to proceed in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Allegations predicated solely on conduct prior to legally recognized candidature cannot, by themselves, constitute corrupt practice under the election law, and a document need not be served as part of the election petition unless it is incorporated as an integral part of the pleadings.

---