Election petition should not be rejected at the very threshold where there is a “substantial compliance” of law, the Supreme Court on Friday said as it dismissed a plea of Manipur MLA challenging the decision of the high court which refused to dismiss a plea against her election. A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah rejected the plea of MLA Kimneo Haokip Hangshing challenging the decision of Manipur High Court dismissing her plea in which she questioned the maintainability of petition against her election from Saikul constituency in 2022 on Kuki Peoples Alliance party ticket. “We see no reason to interfere with the finding of the high court of Manipur that the election petition discloses a cause of action and that there is substantial compliance of the requirements provided under provisions of Representation of the People Act (RPA) and thus the petition cannot be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC (maintainability of suit),” the bench said.
Hangshing’s election was challenged by one Kenn Raikhan, who unsuccessfully contested the election on the seat as an independent candidate on the ground that she had not disclosed her assets in her nomination papers and that she had indulged in “corrupt practices” in the election.
The MLA sought dismissal of the election petition filed before the high court by filing an application under order VII rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
She sought dismissal of the election petition filed by Raikhan on the grounds that it does not disclose any cause of action as it does not specify any corrupt practices alleged to have been committed by her, nor is there any averment regarding concealment of her income/assets.
The high court on July 5, 2023 dismissed her plea by the impugned order and held that whether she had any income or not and whether he had given a wrong declaration at the time of his nomination needs to be looked into in trial for which evidence has to be led by the parties and examined by the court.
Aggrieved by the order, she challenged the July 5, 2023 order before the apex court.
The bench on Friday said as per section 83 of the RPA, an election petition should contain a concise statement of material facts and particulars of any corrupt practices which is alleged against the returned candidate and it further requires that the election petition shall also be accompanied by an affidavit in prescribed form to support the allegations of corrupt practices.
“The settled position of law here is that an election petition should not be rejected at the very threshold where there is a substantial compliance of the provisions,” the bench said.
It referred to a 2013 verdict of the apex court and said it was held that an election petition cannot be dismissed even if an affidavit is not filed in terms of the section 83 of RPA.
“What is mandatory, however, is that there should be substantial compliance. In other words, if substantial compliance in terms of furnishing all that is required under the law has been given, the (election) petition cannot be summarily dismissed,” it said. Dealing with the election petition filed by Raikhan, the bench said on perusal of the petition as a whole, including the averments, it is clear that a cause of action has been disclosed by him and whether the petitioner has concealed her investments and her income, and thus her nomination has been improperly accepted, is a triable issue.
It said over the years, election petitions have been filed invariably on the grounds which are similar to the ones raised before this court in the present case.
The top court dismissed the appeal filed by Hangshing and upheld the order of the high court.
