Supreme Court: In an appeal filed by Kimneo Haokip Hangshing, Member of Legislative Assembly (‘MLA’), against the order passed by Manipur High Court, wherein the Court held that whether KH Hangshing had any income or not and whether she had given a wrong declaration at the time of her nomination needs to be looked into in trial for which evidence has to be led by the parties and examined by the Court. The petition cannot be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) application, the division bench of Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. held that a cause of action has been disclosed by the respondent. However, the Court clarified that whether KH Hangshing has concealed her investments and her income, and thus her nomination has been improperly accepted, is a triable issue.
Background:
KH Hangshing was elected as an MLA from the 46-Saikul Assembly Constituency in the 12th General Elections to the Manipur Legislative Assembly, which were held in 2022.
The respondent, who was also a contestant from the same seat, filed an Election Petition before the Manipur High Court challenging the result of the election on the grounds that KH Hangshing has not disclosed her assets in her nomination papers and that she had indulged in “corrupt practices” in the election.
Thereafter, KH Hangshing filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC read with Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (‘RPA’) for rejection of the petition 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. Therefore, the Election Petition does not comply with the requirements of Section 83 of RPA and ought to be dismissed at the threshold. The application was dismissed by the High Court. Aggrieved, she filed the present appeal.
Analysis and Decision:
After perusing Section 83 of the RPA, the Court noted that an Election Petition should, inter alia, contain a concise statement of material facts and particulars of any corrupt practices which is alleged against the returned candidate, etc. Further, the Proviso to Section 83(1) of the Act requires that the Election Petition shall also be accompanied by an affidavit in prescribed form to support the allegations of corrupt practices.
The Court mentioned that over the years, Election Petitions have been filed invariably on the grounds which are similar to the ones raised before this Court.
Concerning the question that whether the Court can dismiss such a petition at the very threshold on an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC or that the petition needs a detailed consideration by the Court, the Bench said this will depend upon what kind of statutory compliances have been made in the Election Petition.
The Court reiterated that the Election Petition should not be rejected at the very threshold where there is a “substantial compliance” of the provisions.
Thus, the Court examined whether “substantial compliance” of Section 83(1)(a) and 83(1)(b) has been done by the respondent.
The Court noted that in the Election Petition, the respondent has pleaded that construction worth approx. Rs. 2 crores have taken place on agricultural land of KH Hangshing, however, the column for investment in land through construction has been left empty by her. Thereafter, the respondent has also pleaded that KH Hangshing was serving as a Committee Officer in the Assembly Secretariat, Manipur Legislative Assembly till 31-12-2021, yet, she has shown her income for FY 2021-22 as Rs.0/-, which is untrue.
On a perusal of the petition as a whole, the Court concluded hat a cause of action has been disclosed by the respondent. However, the Court clarified that whether KH Hangshing has concealed her investments and her income, and thus her nomination has been improperly accepted, is a triable issue.
Moreover, the Court noted that the affidavit, which is required as per the proviso to Section 83(1)(c) of RPA has to be given in Form 25 as per the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961.
Concerning the question that whether an Election Petition is liable to be dismissed at the very threshold even if the allegations of corrupt practices of a returned candidate have not been given by a petitioner in terms of the proviso in Section 83(1)(c) of RPA, the Court referred to G.M. Siddeshwar v. Prasanna Kumar (2013) 4 SCC 776, wherein , it was held that if substantial compliance in terms of furnishing all that is required under the law has been given, the petition cannot be summarily dismissed.
The Court further took note of Thangjam Arunkumar v. Yumkham Erabot Singh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1058, wherein the dismissal of the returning candidate’s Order VII Rule 11 application by the Manipur High Court in an Election Petition was upheld after relying on Siddeshwar ( supra).
Thus, the Court found no reason to interfere with the finding of the Manipur High Court that the Election Petition discloses a cause of action and that there is substantial compliance of the requirements provided under provisions of RPA and thus the petition cannot be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Thus, the Court dismissed the petition.
CASE DETAILS
|
Citation: Appellants : Respondents : |
Advocates who appeared in this case For Petitioner(s): For Respondent(s): |
CORAM :
