# V. NARA Y ANASW AMY v. C.P. THIRlJNAVLKKARASU JANt:ARY lY, 2000

- **Citation:** [2000] 1 S.C.R. 292
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2000
- **Bench:** Dr. A.S. Anand, D.P. Wadhwa A~D S. Raje!'.Dra Babu
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/v-nara-y-anasw-amy-v-c-p-thirljnavlkkarasu-jant-ary-ly-2000-17125
- **Pages:** 35

## Headnote

Representation of the People Act, 19S 1 :
C
Sections 123U)(B) & (2), JOO(l)(b) & (d) and 79(d).
Election--Corrnpt practice-Bribery and undue influenc~lection to
Rajya Sabha-Allegation that MLAs belonging to a political party other than
the election petitioner's were entertained in five Mar hotels by the Chief
Ministef'-The Chief Minister belonged to the returned candidate's political
D parf>--No allegations that the election petitioner was prevented from meeting
any of those MLAs-Further allegarion that Government appointed Chainnen
for five State-owned Corporations after the commencement of the election
proces~--But none of the nominees belonged to the election petitioner's
party-Held: In the circumstances of the case, allegation of bribery and undue
E influence not established.
Section 83( J,(c}- Election-Election petition-Affidavit-Verification
o:f Held : Has to confonn not only to the fonn pre,cribed in substance but
also must contain particulars as· required by RuleJ"-()therwise petition is
liable to be rejected at the threshold--Conduct of Election Rules, 1961,
F R.94-A.
Sections 81, 83 and 86-Election-Election petition-Pleading~-Re
quirements of-Held : Cause of action must be disclosed-The court cannot
dissect pleadings into several parts and consider whether each one of them
G discloses a cause of action--Petition has to be considered as· a whole-There
cannot be a partial rejection of the petition.
Sections 81 and 83-Election-Election petition--Comtpt practice-Requirement~-Held : Petition must be l·uppurted by affidavit which should
disclose source of infonnation- -Petitioner must state which allegations are
H true to his knowledge and which to his belief-Allegation must be clearly and
292
()
' '-" ' •
V. NARA YANASWAMY v. C.P. TIIIRUNAVUKKARASU
293
precisely stated-It should not be open to two equally possible inferences-It A
has to be specifically alleged that the comcpt practice is committed with the
consent of the returned candidate and that a particular electoral right o{ a
person is ajf ected.
Sections 81, 83 ( 1) ( c) and 86-Election-Election petitio11--Mate rial
facts and material particulars-Difference between-Held: Failure to plead
B
material facts is fat al to the election petition-Whereas absence of material
particulars can be cured subsequently-But despite every opportunity to supply
the material particulars the petitioner has not done so, the petition has to be
rejected-However, no duty is cast on the High Court to direct suo motzt the
furnishing of better particulars-In the circumstances of the case, the petition
C
lacked material facts, material particulars, was defective in verification and
the affidavit not in the f onn prescribed.
Hence, petition liable to be rejected-Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
Or. 6 R. 16 and Or. 7 R. 11.
Doctrines : Doctrine of Substantial Compliance-Doctrine of
Curability-Discussed.
The appellant-defeated candidate filed an election petition before the
High Court challenging the election of the respondent-returned candidate
to the Rajya Sabha. The appellant alleged that the election of the respon·
dent was vitiated due to corrupt practice within the meaning of Section
123(1)(B)(b) and Section lllO(l)(d) of the Representation of the People
Act, 1951 committed by the respondent, his agents and other persons with
the consent of the respondent.
The appellant alleged the following corrupt practices committed by
the respondent :·
1. The respondent was proposed by the then Chief Minister belong·
ing to the respondent's political party. For the second set of application
D
E
F
the name of the respondent was proposed by the Minister in the Govern· G
ment of the Union Territory. The proposals were seconded respectively by
Deputy Sp~aker and Parliamentary Secretary to the Chief Minister. All
these four persons acted as agents for the respondent in the election.
2. After the commencement of the election process the Government
of the Vnion Territory announced appointment of Chairmen for fi

## Text

_Characters 0–39,973 of 85,686. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39973 for what follows._

A
8
V. NARA Y ANASW AMY
v.
C.P. THIRlJNAVLKKARASU
JANt:ARY lY, 2000
[DR. A.S. ANAND, C.J., D.P. WADHWA A~D
S. RAJE!'.DRA BABU, JJ.]
Representation of the People Act, 19S 1 :
C
Sections 123U)(B) & (2), JOO(l)(b) & (d) and 79(d).
Election--Corrnpt practice-Bribery and undue influenc~lection to
Rajya Sabha-Allegation that MLAs belonging to a political party other than
the election petitioner's were entertained in five Mar hotels by the Chief
Ministef'-The Chief Minister belonged to the returned candidate's political
D parf>--No allegations that the election petitioner was prevented from meeting
any of those MLAs-Further allegarion that Government appointed Chainnen
for five State-owned Corporations after the commencement of the election
proces~--But none of the nominees belonged to the election petitioner's
party-Held: In the circumstances of the case, allegation of bribery and undue
E influence not established.
Section 83( J,(c}- Election-Election petition-Affidavit-Verification
o:f Held : Has to confonn not only to the fonn pre,cribed in substance but
also must contain particulars as· required by RuleJ"-()therwise petition is
liable to be rejected at the threshold--Conduct of Election Rules, 1961,
F R.94-A.
Sections 81, 83 and 86-Election-Election petition-Pleading~-Re
quirements of-Held : Cause of action must be disclosed-The court cannot
dissect pleadings into several parts and consider whether each one of them
G discloses a cause of action--Petition has to be considered as· a whole-There
cannot be a partial rejection of the petition.
Sections 81 and 83-Election-Election petition--Comtpt practice-Requirement~-Held : Petition must be l·uppurted by affidavit which should
disclose source of infonnation- -Petitioner must state which allegations are
H true to his knowledge and which to his belief-Allegation must be clearly and
292
()
' '-" ' •
V. NARA YANASWAMY v. C.P. TIIIRUNAVUKKARASU
293
precisely stated-It should not be open to two equally possible inferences-It A
has to be specifically alleged that the comcpt practice is committed with the
consent of the returned candidate and that a particular electoral right o{ a
person is ajf ected.
Sections 81, 83 ( 1) ( c) and 86-Election-Election petitio11--Mate rial
facts and material particulars-Difference between-Held: Failure to plead
B
material facts is fat al to the election petition-Whereas absence of material
particulars can be cured subsequently-But despite every opportunity to supply
the material particulars the petitioner has not done so, the petition has to be
rejected-However, no duty is cast on the High Court to direct suo motzt the
furnishing of better particulars-In the circumstances of the case, the petition
C
lacked material facts, material particulars, was defective in verification and
the affidavit not in the f onn prescribed.
Hence, petition liable to be rejected-Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
Or. 6 R. 16 and Or. 7 R. 11.
Doctrines : Doctrine of Substantial Compliance-Doctrine of
Curability-Discussed.
The appellant-defeated candidate filed an election petition before the
High Court challenging the election of the respondent-returned candidate
to the Rajya Sabha. The appellant alleged that the election of the respon·
dent was vitiated due to corrupt practice within the meaning of Section
123(1)(B)(b) and Section lllO(l)(d) of the Representation of the People
Act, 1951 committed by the respondent, his agents and other persons with
the consent of the respondent.
The appellant alleged the following corrupt practices committed by
the respondent :·
1. The respondent was proposed by the then Chief Minister belong·
ing to the respondent's political party. For the second set of application
D
E
F
the name of the respondent was proposed by the Minister in the Govern· G
ment of the Union Territory. The proposals were seconded respectively by
Deputy Sp~aker and Parliamentary Secretary to the Chief Minister. All
these four persons acted as agents for the respondent in the election.
2. After the commencement of the election process the Government
of the Vnion Territory announced appointment of Chairmen for five
H
294
SUPRi:'ME COURT REPORTS
[2000) l S.C.R.
A State-owned Corporations but none of the nominees wets from the
appellant's party which amounted to exercise of undue influence to secure
the votes of the rtlLAs, particularly the MLAs who were nominated as
Chairmen.
3. After the date of the dection was fixed tlte appellant wanted to
B meet all the MLAs but the MLAs other than the MLAs of the appellant's
party were entertained in five star hotels by the Chief Minister.
4. The Minister who had proposed the name of the respondent took
the Deputy Speaker and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Chief Minister
C in a Government vehicle to Goa and made to stay in Government Guest
House and were entertained there at Government e"Pense as a reward for
voting in favour of the respondent.
5. Another agent of the respondent, who was an MLA and Govern·
ment whip belonging to the respondent's party, also influenced and MLA
D belonging to a political party other than the appellant's by keeping him at
a hotel and then taking him to several places at Government expense.
In the verification to the election petition the appellant stated "that
what all stated in tine above paragraphs l to 15 are all true to the best of
my knowledge, information and belief. In the affidavit the appellant stated
E as follows :·
(a) "that the statements made in paragraphs 7 to 10 of the accom·
panying Election Petition about the commission of the corrupt practice of
gratification as a motive or reward for securing votes and undue influence
F as referred under Section 123 (1) (B) and (2) of the Representation of the
People Act, 1951 and the particulars of such corrupt practice mentioned
in paragraphs 7 to 10 of the same petition are true to my knowledge;
(b) that the statements made in par11graphs 7 to 10 of the accom·
panying Election Petition about the commission of the corrupt pr.ictice of
G gratification as a motive or reward for securing votes and undue influence
as referred under Section 123(1)(B) and (2) of the Representation of the
People Act, 1951 and the particulars of such corrupt practice mentioned
in paragraphs 7 to 11 of the same petition are true to my information;
(c) that the statements made in paragraph 11 of the accompanying
H Election Petition about the commission of corrupt practice 1Jf gratification
' ,.)
I
,----
'
I
I
I
'
I ' '
V.NARAYANASWAMYv. C.P. TllIRUNAVUKKARASU
295
as a motive or reward for securing votes and undue influence as referred A
under Section 123(1) (B) and (2) of the Representation of the People Act,
1951 and the particulars of such corrupt practice mentioned in paragrapli
11 of the same petition are true to my information."
In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent he denied all the
allegations made against him and submitted that the allegations of corrupt
practices alleged in the election petition were vague and unspecific and
bereft of material facts and particulars. It was also submitted that the
election petition be dismissed under Order 6 Rule 16 and Order 7 Rule 11
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. On the same day the respondent also
filed a miscellaneous application praying for striking out certain paragraplis of the election petition on the ground that material facts were not
stated in the election petition and prayed for dismissal of the election
petition on that score. The respondent also raised objection to the validity
B
c
of the verification to the petition and to the affidavit in support of the
allegations of corrupt prdctices. The appellant filed a rejoinder to the
counter-affidavit and reply to the miscellaneous application reaffirming D
what he had said in the election petition. The appellant said that the
election petition was duly verified as per law and that the affidavit was
legally correct.
The High Court dismissed the election petition without holding any E
trial. Hence this appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, this Court
HELD : 1.1. An election petition is based on the rights, which are
purely the creature of statute, and if the statute renders any particular F
requirement mandatory, the court cannot exercise dispensing powers to
waive non-compliance. For the purpose of considering a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the election petitition the averments in the
petition should be assumed to be true and the court has to find out v;bether
these averments dbclose a cause of actfon or a triable issue as such.
Sections 81, 83(1)(c) and 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 G
read with Rule 94-A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 and Form 25
are to be read conjointly as an integral scheme. When so read if the court
finds non-compliance it has to uphold the preliminary objection and has
no option except to dismiss the petition. The appellant had every opportunity to supply the material particulars, which admittedly were lacking H
296
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2000] 1 S.C.R.
A and also to amend the verificatio11 and to file the affidavit in the form
prescribed hut for the reaso11s best known to him, he failed to do so.
(320-B·C]
1.2. There is a difference bet\'l'ee11 "material facts" and •material
particulars". While the failure to plead material facts is fatal to the election
B petitio11 the absence of material particulars can be cured at a later stage
by an appropriatt amendment. "Material facts" mean the entire bundle of
facts, which would constitute a complete cause of action and these must
be concisely stattd in the election petitio11 vide Sectio11 83(1)(a). Then
under Sectio11 83(l)(b) the election petition must co11tain full particulars
C of any corrupt practice. T:1ese particulars are obviously different from
material facts on which the petition is fo11nded. (320-D]
2.1. A petition levelling a charge of corrupt practice is required by
law to be supported by an affidavit and the election petitioner is obliged
to disclose bis source of information in respect of the commissio11 of
D corrupt practice. He must state which of the alltgations are true to bis
lmowledge and which to bis belief 0111 information received and believed by
him to be true. It is not the form of the aftidavit but its substance that
matters. To plead corrupt practice as contemplated by law it bas to be
specifically alleged that the corrupt practices were committed with the
E consent of the candidate and that a particular electoral right of a person
was affected. It cannot be left to time, chance or conjecture for the court
to draw inference by adopting an involved process of reasoning. Where the
alleged corrupt practice is open to two equal possible inferences the
pleadings of corrupt practice must fail. Where several paragraphs of the
election petition alleging corrupt practices remain unaffirmed under the
F verification clause as well as the affidavit, the unswom allegation could
have no legal existence and the court could not take cognizance thereof.
The charge of corrupt practice being quasi-criminal in nature the court
must always insist on strict compliance with the provisions of law. In such
a case it is equally essential t!iat the particulars of the charge of allegations
G are clearly and precisely stated in the petition. (320-F-H; 321-A]
2.2. It is the violation of the provisions of Section 81 of the Act, which
can attract the application of the doctrine of substantial compliance. The
defect of the type provided in Section 83 of the Act on the other hand can
be dealt with under the doctrine of curability, on the principles co11tained
H in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1!}08. N1111-compliance with the provisions
V. NARA YANASWA.\1Y v. C.P .. THlRUNAVUKKARASU
297
of Sectio11 83 may lead to dismissal of the petitio11 if the catter falls within A
the scop: 11f Order 6 Rule 16 and Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC. [321-B]
2.3. Where neither the verification in the petition nor the affidavit
gives any indication of the sources of information of the petitioner as to
the facts stated in the petition which are not to his knowledge and the
petitioner persists that the verificatio11 is correct and affidavit in the form
B
prescribed does not suffer from any defect, the allegations of corrupt
practice cannot be inquired and tried at all. In such a case the petitio11
has to be rejected on the threshold for non-compliance with the mandatory
provisions of law as to pleadings. Where the petition does not disclose any
cause of action it has to be rejected. The court, however, cannot dissect the C
pleadings into several parts and co11sider whether ellch one of them
discloses a cause of action. The petition has to be considered as a lrhole.
There cannot be a partial rejection of the petition. [321-C-E]
D. Ramachandran v. R. V. Janakiraman, [1999) 3 SCC 267, referred
to.
3. In a petition on the allegation of corrupt practices cause of action
cannot be equated with the cause of action as is normally understood
because of the consequences that follow in a petition based 011 the allegatio11s of corrupt practices. An election petition seeking a challenge to the
election of a candidate on the allegation of corrupt practices is a serious
matter. If proved not only that the candidate suffers ignominy, he also
snffers disqualilicatiun from stnnding for election for a period that may
extend to six years. Reference in this connection may be made to Section
D
E
8-A lbf the Act. It was for this purpose that proviso to Section 83(1) was
inserted by Act 4 of 1961 (w.e.r. 20-9-1961) requiring filing of the affidavit F
in the prescribed form where there are allegations of currupt practice in
the election petition. Filing of the affidavit as required is not a mere
formality. By naming a document as an affidavit it does not become an
affidavit. To be an affid.avit it has to conform not only to the form
prescribed in substanc.: but ltas also to contain particulars as required by G
the Rules. [322-0-E; 324-A]
4. The High Court has undoubtedly the power to permit amendment
of the petition for supply of better material particulars and also to require
amendment of the verification and filing of the required affidavit but there
is no duty cast on the High Court to direct suo motu the furnishing of better H
298
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2000] 1 S.C.R.
A particulars and requiring amendment of the petition for the purpose of
verification and filing of proper affidalit. In a matter of this !tind the
primary responsibility for furnishing full particulars of the alleged corrupt
practices and to tile a petition in full compliance with the provisions of law
is on the petitioner. [323-H; 324-A]
B
Bhikaji Keshao Joshi v. Brijlal Nandlal Biyani, AIR (1955) SC 610,
followed.
Ch. Subbarao v. Member, Election Tribuna4 Hyderabad, [19114] 6 SCR
213; Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar v. Roop Singh Rat/tore, [1964] 3
C SCR 573; Dau/at Ram Chauhan v.Anand Shanna, AIR [1984] SC 621; FA.
Sapa v. Singora, [1991] 3 SCC 375; KM. Mani v. P J. Anthony, (1979] 2 SCC
221; Gajanan Krishnaji Bapat v. Dattaji Raghobaji Meghe, Ant (1995) SC
2284; T.M Jacob v. C. Pou/ose, [1999] 4 SCC 274; Dr. Shipra v. Shanti Lal
Kholwal, (1996] 5 SCC 181; R.P. Moidutty v. P. T. Kunju Mohammad, JT
(1999) 7 SC 457; L.R. Shivaramagowda v. T.M. Chandrashekar, [1999] 1
D SCC 666; H.D. Revanna v. G.Puttaswamy Gowda, [1999] 2 SCC 217 and
Dharamvir v.Amar Singh, [1996] 3 SCC 158, relied on.
Sampat N. Balkrishna v. George Fernandez, [1969] 3 SCC 238; Azhar
Hussain v. Rajiv Gandh~ [1986] 2 SCR 782; A.S. Subbaraj v. M. Muthiah, 5
E ELR 21 and Ba/wan Singh v. Lakshmi Narain, AIR (1960) SC 770, cited.
5.1. The appellant alll!ged that the MLAs were '!tept" in a hotel but he
has not given particulars as to what be meant by the word "kept". "Kept" is
certainly not "confined". What entertainment wa~ provided to those MLAs
in various places has also not been specified. It is not his case that he was
F prevented in any way from meeting any of those MLAs. It was a material
fact to allege which he failed to do so. This is apart from the fact that the
material particulars as to when the MLAs were taken to the hotel and to
other places, the names of the MLAs and names of the hotels in these
places, who too!t them there, who paid their bills and who brought them
G bac!t, are lacking. The appellant does not show as to why he could m1t mett
all these MLAs prior to the election. Apart from one independent MLA
other MLAs belonged to various other political parties. Rather it can be
assumed that the MLAs voted according to their political affiliations. It has
come on record t!tat out of a total number of 29 MLAs \'/ho constituted the
Legislative Assembly, one political party ltad taltcn the decision not to v11te
H for any candidate and that is how the two MLAs of this party did not
p
V. NARAYANASWAMYv. C.P. THIRUNAVUKKARASU
299
participate in the election and total votes polled were 27. There was only A
one independent MLA and his casting of vote eitlner vmy would not have at
all affected the result of the election considering the numlnr of votes polled
by each 11f the candidates. It is not the case of the appellant that he was
barred fr11m meetin.~ any of the MLAs in order to s11licit their votes. There
is no e.llegation if tlitre is any complaint by any MLA that he was !tept out
of circubltion by respondent 11r with bis consent by any other person for
the purpose 11r not heinc accessible to the appellant. [324-C-D]
B
5.2. The appellant in his petition stated that the Minister, the Deputy
Speaker and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Chief Minister were the
agents of the respondent. It is furtl1er alleged that one of them to11!t the
C
11ther tv•o to Goa with a view to influencing them to get tlteir votes in favour
of the respondent. But it is paradoxical where 011e agent influences the
other agent to vote in a particular way. It certainly could not be a corrupt
practice. Regarding the allegation relating to the MLA who was Government whip it is not the case of the appellant that what the said MLA did was
with the consent of the respondent or any of his agent or othenvise. This is D
a material fact, which the appellant failed to allege. Lastly, the notification
regarding to the appoinbnents of Chairmen to various Corp11rati1111s came
out much later after the results 'l'l'2re declared. It is correct that none of tile
nominees belonged to the appellant's party. [324-H; 325-A·C]
Therefore, the e!1ittlon petltl11n not only lt~clted the material fccts, It E
11foo lec!ted tlotcrlcl p::irt!cul111"11, \<~n d::rcctlv;i In r..riflcctlon and the
efildovlt lll:id "'~~ n11t In th:i fo;;ra prc:.:crlb:::d. [325-D]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3871 of
~
F
From the JudBIDent and Order dated 18.8.98 of the Madras Hish
Court in DA. No. 298 of 1998.
M.C. Bhnndare, 1. Satyanarayana, Ms. C.K. Sucharita and Ranji G
Thomas for the Appellant.
S. Sivasubramaniam, R. Mohan, S. Thananjayan and M.A. Krishnamurty for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
300
SUPREJv."E COURT REPORTS
[2000) 1 S.C.R.
D.P. WADHWA, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment
dated August 18, 1998 of the Madras High Court allowing the miscellaneous application (Original Application No. 298/98) filed by the respondent under Order 6 Rule 161 and Ruk 112 of the Code of Civil Procedure
(for short the 'Code') and thus holding that the election petition filed by
the appellant under Section lOO(l)(b) and ( d) of the Representation of
the People Act, 1951 {for short the 'Act') stands dismissed under Section
83(1) of the Act read with the Code. In the election petition appellant had
challenged the election of the respondent to the Council of States (Rajya
Sabha) from the: Pondicherry Legislative Assembly.
On Sepkmber 16, 1997 Election Commission issued a notification
calling upon the Legislative Assembly of the Union of Territory of Pondicherry to till up the vacancy on the completion of the term of the appellimt in the
Rajya Sabha. The notification also stipalated the election schedule. By the
same notification the Secretary, Pondicherry Legislative Assc:mbly was appointed as Returning Officer for the tlection. On September 26, 1997 the
Election Commission released the list of contesting candidates. These were
the appellant belonging to the Indian National Congress (INC) and the
respondent belonging to Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK). On October
l.
2.
'16. Striking out pleading;· - The Court may at any stage of the proceedingi; order to
be struck out or amended any matter in any pleading -
(a) which m~y be unnecessary, scandalou:;, frivolous or vexatious, or
(b) which m;,y tend to prejudice, embarr.a."" or de!cy the fair trial of the suit, or
(c} which is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court.'
'Rejection of plaint. - The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases :
(a) where it does not di~close a cause of ~ction;
(b) where the relief claimed is undetvalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the
Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper
insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff on being required by the Court to supply the
requisite stEmp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, faih to do oo,
(d) where the suit appe<rs from the statement in the plaint to be barred by •ny law;
Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying
of the requHte stamp-papers shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be
recorded, is >atisfied that the plaintiff WJS prevented by any cause of an exceptional
nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-papers, as the C<iSC
may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would
cause grave injustice to the plaintiff."
I
!
l
I
I
I '
()
V. NARAYANASWAMY v. C.P. THIRUNA VUKKARASU [D.P. WADHWA,J.f
301
23, 1997 election was held and results declared the same day. Out of the
total electorate of 29 members of the Legislative Assembly 27 cast their
votes. Respondents polled 15 votes, the appellant U. On October 7, 1997
notification dated October 6, 1997 to this effect was published in the
Government Gazette. On November 17, 1997 appellant fded the election
petition in the High Court challenging the election of the respondent. He
alleged that election of the respondent was vitiated due to corrupt practice
with the meaning of Section 123(1)(B){b )3 and Section 100(1)( d)4 of the
Act, committed by the respondent, his agents and other persons with the
consent of the respondent.
3.
'123 Conupt practices. • The following shall be deemed to be corrupt pr•ctices for the
purposes of this Act;
(1) "Bribery", that is to say·
(A) ....... ..
(B) the receipt of, or agreement to receive, any gr•tification, whether as a motive or a
reward·
(a) by a person for standing or not standing as, or for withdrawing or not withdrawing
from being, • candidate; or
(b) by any person whomsoever for himself or any other person for voting or refraining
from voting, or inducing or attempting to induce any elector to vote or refrain from
voting, or any candidate to withdraw or not to withdraw his candidature."
Explanation. · For the purprn;es of this clause the term "gratification" is not restricted
to pecuniary gr•tifications or gratifications estimable in money and it includes all form.'
of entertainment and all forms of employment for rewJrd but it does not include the
payment of any expenses bona fide incurred at, or for the purpose of, any election and
duly entered in the account of election expenses referred to in section 78.
(2) l:ndue influence, that is to Slly, any direct or indirect interference or attempt to
interfere on the part of the candidate or his agent, or of any other person with the
consent of the candidate or his election agent, with the free exercise of any electoral
right :
Provided that •
4.
"100. Grounds for declaring election to be void · (1) Subject to the provisions of
sub-section (2) if the High Court is of opinion •
(a)············
(b) that any corrupt pr•ctice has been committed by a returned candidate or his election
agent or by any other person with the consent of a returned candidate or his election
agent, or
(c) ·······
( d) that the result of the election, in so far so it concerns a returned candidate, has
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
been materially affected •
H
302
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2000) l S.C.R.
A
The appdlant alleged the following corrupt practices committed by
the respondent ·
1. Respondent was proposed by \fr. R.V. Janakiraman, Chief Minister belonging to DMK. For the second set of application the name of
respondent was proposed by Mr. C. Jayakumar, Minister in the Government of Pondicherry. The proposals were seconded respectively by Mr. M.
B Kandaswamy, Deputy Speaker and Mr. K. Rajasekheran, Parliamentary
Secretary to the Chief Minister. All these four persons acted as agents for
the respondent in the election. (parn 6 of the election petition)
2. After the commencement of the election process on September 26,
1997 Government of Pondicherry announced appointment of Chairmen for
C five State owned corporations. It was published in the daily newspaper
Daily Jhanthi on September 27, 1997. None of the nominees was from
Congress. This amounted to exercise of undue influence to secure the votes
of the MLAs, particularly the MLAs who wer~ nominated as Chairmen.
The Government of Pondicherry was headed by Mr. R.V. Janakiraman,
who acted as agent of the respondent. Announcement of the notification
materially affected the result of the election. (para 11 of the election
D petition)
E
F
G
(i) ....... .
(ii) by ;my comipt proctice committed in the intere&ts of the returned CQndidate by on
~cent other lh·:n hb el:ction :cent, or
(Ill) .......... .
(Iv) .......... .
tho H(;h Court 111~11 dccbr;: th• el:ction of tho return~d c~ndid~te to bo void.
(2) If In the opinion of the Hluh Coun, ! returned ccndld~te h~~ been 311ilty by Qn
Q(lCl!t, other tllon his election ~i:;;:nt of "ny corrupt proctlce but the Hli:h Court b
s:.tisfled •
(:) thut no such corrupt pr.octlce was committed ot the election by the cundid~te or his
election .oi;ent, .ond e-.i:y such corrupt pr.:ctice w~s committed contrui:y to the ordeB,
Md without the con:ent, ot the c::ndid::te or his election ~sent;
(b) Omitted
(c) thot tile c;.indid~te and his election :,gi::nt too!< •II reosono.ble meuns for pre-=nting
the commission of corrupt practices •t the election, >nd
(d) that in all other respects the election w~s free from any corrupt prnctice on the p::n
of the candid~tc or any of his agents,
H
then the High Coun may decide that the election of the returned candidate is not void."
()
•
V. NARAY ANASWAMY v. C.P. 'fHtRLNAVl:KKARASL [lJ.P. WADHWA, J.J
303
3. After the date of the election was fixed for October 3, 1997 the A
appellant wanted to meet all the MLAs at Pondicherry. However, MLAs
belonging to DMK, Tamil Manila Congress, Communist Party of lndia,
Pattali Makkel Katchi, Janata Dal and also an independent MLA were not
available in Pondicherry. The MLAs were taken out of Pondicherry, entertained there and were brought back to Pondicherry on Octobt:r 2, 1997.
Similarly exet:pt two Ministers, Mr. S.P. Sivakumar and Mr. R.
Viswanathan, no other Minister was available in Pondicherry. The Chief
Minister Mr. R.V. Janakiraman took the MLAs and kept them at Hotel
Ashok, Pondicherry by providing all facilities to them from Septt:mber 25,
1997 tu September 27, 1997. Thereafter the MLAs wen: shifted tu
Mahabalipuram and entertained in five star hotels. Complaint to this effoct
B
c
was sent by the appellart to the Election Commission on Octobcr 2, 1997.
(para 7 of thc election pctition)
4. Mr. C. Jayakumar, who had proposed the name of the respondent,
took Mr. Kandaswamy and Mr. K. Rajasekheran to Goa with a vicw to D
inlluence them. They were taken thcre in a Government vehicle bcaring
registration No. PY-01-C-2345 and PY-01-0-9289 on September 27, 1998,
returning on October 1, 1997. In Goa all the three stayed in Government
Guest House. Entire expenses for tht:ir travel and stay at Goa wcre met by
the Govcrnmcnt of Pondicherry. Both Mr. Kandaswamy and Mr. RajasekE
heran were taken to Goa and entertained there as a reward for voting in
favour of the respondent. They Were influenced to c;ist their votes in favour
of the respondent. This conduct of Mr. C. Jayakumor, who was lleent of
the respondent, amounted to corrupt pr<:ictice. Both Mr. C. Juydtumur .und
Mr. R.V. J,mw.kir<iman, the Chief Minister, did the corrupt prnctice with
the consent of the respondent, which materially affected the election result F
in so far iiS it concerned the respondent.
5. Mr. N. Kcshavan, another agent of the respondent, also influenced
Mr. R. Rajnraman, Janata Dal MLA. Mr. N. Keshavan, MLA is the
Government whip belonging to DMK. Mr. R. Rajaraman was kept at G
Ashok Hotel at Pondicherry and then taken to Kovalam, Chengleput
District, then to Tirupati in a Government vehicle bearing registration No.
PY-01-6667 and then brought back to Pondicherry on October 2, 1997.
Entire expenses of this trip were borne by the Govermnent of Pondicherry
headed by Mr. R.V. Janakiraman, an agent of the respondent.
H
304
SUP RF.ME COURT REPORTS
[2000) 1 S.C.R.
A
In the counkr affidavit filed by the respondent on May 25, 1998 he
denied all the allegations made against him. It was submitted that the
allegations of corrupt practices alleged in the election petition were vague
and unspecific and bereft of material facts and particulars. It was also
submitted that the election petition be dismissed under Order 6 Rule 16
and Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code. On the same day the respondent also
B filed a miscellaneous application (Original Application No. 298 of 1998)
praying for striking out the paragraphs 5 to 11, 13 and 14 of the election
p&ition on the ground that material facts were not stated in the election
petition and praying for dismissal of the election petition to that score.
Respondent also raised objection to the validity of the verification to the
C petition and to the affidavit in support of the allegations of corrupt practices. The appellant filed rejoinder to the counter affidavit and reply to the
miscellaneous application reaffirming what he: had said in the election
petition. He said the election petition was duly verified as per law and the
affidavit legally correct.
D
E
On the pleadings of the parties High Court framed the issues.
However, by the impugned judgment dattcd August 18, 1998 High Court
allowed the miscellaneous application of the respondent and dismissed the
election petition without holding any trial. Aggriewd appellant got leave
to appeal and this is how the matter is before us.
Mr. Murli Bhandare, learned senior counsel for the appellant, confined his submissions to corrupt practices alleged in paras 6, 7, 8, 9 & 11
of the election petition, which haw been noted above. He submitted that
High Court was in error in dismissing the election petition without trial on
F the ground that material facts were not set out when High Court itself had
framed issues on the basis of the material facts set out in the election
petition. He said High Court failed in appreciating the crucial distinction
between material facts and material particulars and that High Court also
failed to take notice of the decision of this Court in D. Ramachandran v.
R. V. !anakiraman and Others, (1999) 3 SCC 267, holding that the court
G cannot dissect the pkadings into several parts to consider whether each on
of them disclosed a cause of action Mr. Bhandare said following questions
arose for consideration by this Court :-
(i) · Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the elecH
lion petition without trial although material facts were set out
..
V. NARAYANASWAMY v. C.P. THIRUNAVUKKARASV (D.P. WADHWA,J.J
305
in the petition and issue~ were framed for trial.
A
(ii) Whether the High Court was justified in entertaining a miscellaneous application on behalf of the returned candidate
for striking out paragraphs 5 to 11, 13 and 14 of the election
petition after framing issues for trial on the basis of the
pleadings and after hearing the parties.
B
(iii) Whether the High Court was justified in dissecting the pleadings into several parts to consider whether each one them
discloses a cause of action.
(iv) Whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the election C
petition without trial without appreciating the crucial distinction between material facts and material particulars.
We may refer to the verification to the election petition and also to
the affidavit, which is required to be filled, in the form prescribed, by the D
appellant:
"VERIFICATION
I, Mr. V. Narayanasamy, son of Sri Velu, residing at No. 5,
Ellaiamman Koil Street, Pondicherry-1, the petitioner herein do
hereby declare that what all stated in the above paragraphs 1 to
15 are all true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
Verified at Chennai this 17th day of November, 1997.
Petitioner."
"AFFIDAVIT OF V. NARA Y ANASAMY
I, Mr. V. Narayanasawamy, son of Vclu, Hindu aged about 50
years, residing at No. 5, Ellaiamman Koil Street, Pondicherry-1
E
F
now temporarily come down to Chennai, the petitioner in the G
Election Petition calling in question the Election of Shree C.P.
Thirunavukkarasu, the respondent in the Election Petition, niakes
solemn affirmation/Oath and say :-
(a) that the statements made in paragraphs 7 to 10 of the accompanying Election Petition about the commission of the corH
A
B
c
D
E
306
SUPRFME COURT REPORTS
[20CO) 1 S.C.R.
rupt practice of gratification as a motive or reward for securing votes and undue influence as referred under Section
123{1 )(B) and (2) of the particulars of such corrupt practice
mentioned in paragraphs 7 to 10 of the same petition are true
to my knowledge.
(b) That the statements made in paragraphs 7 to 10 of the
accompanying Election Petition about the Commission of the
corrupt practice of gratificc: tions a motive or reward for
securing votes and undue influence as referred under Section
123(1 )(b) and (2) of the Representation of the People Act,
1951 and the particulars of such corrupt practice mentioned
in paragraphs 7 to 11 of the same petition are true to my
information :
( c) That the statem1,;nts made in paragraph 11 of the accompanying Election Petition about the: Commis~ion of corrupt practice of gratification as a motive or reward for securing votes
and undue influence as referred under Section 123(1)(B) and
(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the
particulars of such corrupt practice mentioned in paragraph
11 of the same petition are true to my information."
Both the verification and the affidavit do not meet the requirement
of law.
In the counter affidavit filed to the eh::ction petition, the r1:spondcnt
had sp1:cifically pr11y1:d for strikina out pun1s S to 11, 13 1111d 14 of the
F election petition on the [ll'OUnd th:.it in tho~.: pllTaertiphs there W\lre no
material facts tnd thut material facts nccessmy to constitute cause of action
had not been ple11ded. He had also prayed for dismissal of the election
petition under Order 6 Rule 16 and Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code.
Appellant, it appears, filed his rejoinder denying thut the material facts h11d
G not been stated or that the petition had not been verified properly or the
affidavit in support of corrupt practice did not conform to the requirements
of law. In the miscellaneous application (Oriainal Application No. 298198),
the respondent had ;;gain prayed for striking out the paragraphs 5 to 11,
13 and 14 of the election petition as wdl for dismissal of the election
petition on the grounds that the avcrments pleaded in those paragraphs
H did not give rise to (i) any triable: issm: and (ii) the election petition
..
V. NARAYANASWAMYv. C.P.THIRUNAVVKKARASt: (D.P. WADHWAJ.)
307
suffered from lack of valid verification and the affidavit. Again in reply to A
this, the appdlant denied that there Wt:re no material facts and that the
verification in the petition was not proper or that the affidavit was not in
accordance with the Rules.
The question, therefore, before us, is what is the effect of lack of
makrial facts, matt:rial particulars, proper verification to the election
B
petition and the defective affidavit required to be filed in the form
prescribed'! The respondent says that when the petition lacked even
material facts and since the pt:tition did not disclose cause of action for
having committed any corrupt practice, for all these reasons High Court
was justified in dismissing the petition at the threshold without going for a C
trial.
In support of their rival contentions various decisions of this Court
were cited at the Bar. We may refer to some of them.
In Ch. Subbarao v. Member, Election Tribunal, Hyderabad, (1964] 6 D
SCR 213 (CB) elt:ction petition was type written and the copies which
accompanied the pc:tition were carbon copies of the type written script, so
there was no question of the copies being other than true copies. The
copies bore two signatures in original of the petitioner authenticating both
the contents of the petition as well as the verification thc:reof. The
petitioner, however, did not insert the word ''true copy" before or above
the signatures. High Court considered that this rendered the petition filed
not in accordance with Section 81(3) of the Act and on that ground the
petition was dismissed. The view of the High Court was challenged before
this Court. While explaining the proposition that an election petition was
not to be equated to an action at law or in equity but that as the rights
were purely the creatun: of statute, if the statute rendered any particular
requirement mandatory, the courts possessed and could exercise no dispensing power to waive non-compliance. This Court held that the alleged
defect in the: petition did not constitute non-compliance with the provisions
E
F
of Section 81(3) of the Act as there was substantial compliance with those G
provisions. In coming to this conclusion, the Court relied on its earlier
Constitution Bench decision in the case of Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram
Kumar v. Roop Singh Rathore & Ors., (1964] 3 SCR 573.
In Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar's case [ 1964] 3 SCR 573 (CB)
this Court held that defect in verification which is to be made in the manner H
308
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2000j 1 S.C.R.
A laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the verification of
pleadings as required by clause (c) of Section 81(3) is not fatal to the
maintainability of the election petition. The Court then considered the
arguments relating to the affidavit which accompanied the election petition
in respect of corrupt practice alleged in the petition. The argument was
B that the affidavit was m:ither in the prescribed form nor was it properly
sworn as required by the Rules under the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961.
Therefore, there was a failure to comply with the provisions of Section
83(1) of the Act. Further argument was that an election petition under
Section 81 must comply with the provisions of Section 83 and unless it
complies with those provisions, it is not an election petition under Section
C 81. The Court approved the view of the Election Tribunal that the affidavit
was in the prescribed form but due to inexperience the Oath Commissioner
had made a mistake in the verification portion of the affidavit. This Court
did not think that the defect in the verification due to the inexperience of
the Oath Commission was such a fatal defect as to require the dismissal of
D the election petition.
E
F
G
H
In Dau/at Ram Chauhan v. Anand Sharma, AIR (1984) SC 621
(1984] 2 SCC 64 (21), this Court laid two propositions :
''1.