Election petition defects and vague corrupt-practice pleadings do not require threshold dismissal where curable irregularities and specific allegations remain.

An election petition could not be dismissed on the ground that the Election Tribunal reopened a one-day delay already condoned by the competent authority; the limitation objection was not open for reconsideration. Non-joinder of candidates who had withdrawn before the poll did not justify dismissal, and even a necessary-party objection was not a basis for outright rejection at that stage. Defective verification without dates was treated as a curable irregularity, not a ground for threshold dismissal. For corrupt-practice pleadings, vague allegations had to be struck out or clarified, while specific allegations could still be enquired into. The dismissal was set aside and the matter remitted for enquiry on the surviving allegations.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Election Tribunal could reopen the Election Commission's order condoning the one-day delay in filing the election petition; (ii) whether non-joinder of candidates who had withdrawn before the poll justified dismissal of the petition; (iii) whether the petition was liable to dismissal for defective verification and absence of dates; and (iv) whether vague particulars of corrupt practices in the schedule warranted dismissal of the petition in limine, or only striking out of vague allegations and enquiry into specific ones.

Issue (i): whether the Election Tribunal could reopen the Election Commission's order condoning the one-day delay in filing the election petition

Analysis: The petition had been admitted by the Election Commission after condoning delay. The Tribunal nevertheless reconsidered the question under section 90(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The governing principle was that once the competent authority had condoned the delay, the Tribunal could not treat the limitation question as open for reconsideration. The explanation for the delay was not found false, and there was no sufficient reason to interfere with the condonation already granted.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's view on limitation was unsustainable and the petition could not be dismissed on that ground.

Issue (ii): whether non-joinder of candidates who had withdrawn before the poll justified dismissal of the petition

Analysis: The objection rested on section 82 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The candidates in question had withdrawn before the poll and did not belong to the class whose non-joinder would require dismissal in limine. Further, the controlling authority had already settled that even where a necessary party is absent, the petition is not liable to be dismissed outright on that sole ground, and the matter must be considered at the appropriate stage with reference to the result of the case.

Conclusion: The non-joinder objection could not support dismissal of the petition.

Issue (iii): whether the petition was liable to dismissal for defective verification and absence of dates

Analysis: Section 83(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and Order VI, Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 required verification of pleadings in the prescribed manner. The verification in the petition and schedule was not defective merely because it did not segregate paragraphs verified on knowledge from those verified on information, since the pleadings were presented as a whole on information and belief. The real defect was the absence of dates. That omission was a curable irregularity and did not justify dismissal of the petition at the threshold; the proper course was to require supplementation of the verification.

Conclusion: The petition was not liable to dismissal solely for the defect in verification.

Issue (iv): whether vague particulars of corrupt practices in the schedule warranted dismissal of the petition in limine, or only striking out of vague allegations and enquiry into specific ones

Analysis: Section 83(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 required full particulars, including names, dates and places, so that the opposite party could meet the case fairly. Most of the allegations in the schedule were vague and insufficiently particularised, though one allegation was specific enough to warrant enquiry. The proper approach was not outright dismissal of the entire petition. The Tribunal ought to have called for better particulars, and on non-compliance should have struck out the vague allegations while proceeding with the reasonably specific charge. The separate allegations of disqualification under section 7(d) also raised matters requiring enquiry, since if established they could affect the validity of the returned candidate's election.

Conclusion: The blanket dismissal was erroneous; the matter had to go forward only on the specific surviving allegations.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in part, the dismissal of the election petition was set aside, and the matter was remitted for fresh enquiry confined to the surviving disqualification allegations and the specific bribery allegation, after rectification of the verification defect.

Ratio Decidendi: An election petition should not be dismissed at the threshold for curable verification defects or for vagueness in most allegations where some charges are sufficiently specific; the proper course is to strike out vague matter, require particulars, and proceed to enquire into the specific surviving allegations.

---