- Case
- SANTOSH S/O TULSHIRAM CHAVHAN v. ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA THR. CHIEF ELECTION, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NAGPUR AND OTHER (Bombay High Court, 19-03-2025)
- Law
- Code of Civil Procedure, Representation of the People Act.
Facts: The petitioner, Santosh Chavhan, an advocate, filed an election petition challenging the election of Nitin Jairam Gadkari, alleging violations of the Model Code of Conduct by Gadkari and the Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP). The petitioner claimed that Gadkari used digital machines to circulate slips with his photograph, name, and the BJP symbol to mislead voters. The petitioner sought a declaration that he himself be declared the elected member and for cancellation of Gadkari's certificate of election.
Procedural Posture: Nitin Jairam Gadkari filed applications under Order VII Rule 11 and Order VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) read with Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (RP Act) seeking rejection of the election petition and striking out pleadings. The High Court was hearing these applications.
Issue: 1. Whether the election petition is liable to be dismissed for non-compliance with Section 82 of the RP Act, specifically the mandatory requirement of joining all contesting candidates as respondents when the petitioner seeks a declaration that he himself be declared elected? 2. Whether the election petition discloses a cause of action, particularly concerning allegations of corrupt practices and violation of the Model Code of Conduct, considering the requirements of Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act and Order VI Rule 2 of the CPC regarding material facts? 3. Whether the petitioner can amend the petition to include all contesting candidates as respondents after the limitation period prescribed under Section 81 of the RP Act?
Holding: The High Court allowed Gadkari's application and dismissed the election petition.
Reasoning: The Court held that Section 82 of the RP Act mandates the inclusion of all contesting candidates as respondents when the petitioner seeks a declaration of being elected. Non-compliance with this provision is a fatal defect leading to dismissal under Section 86(1) of the RP Act. The Court further stated that the RP Act is a self-contained code, and the provisions of the CPC, including Order VI Rule 17, cannot be used to circumvent the mandatory requirements of the RP Act regarding joinder of parties and limitation. The Court also found that the petition lacked "material facts" as required by Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act and Order VI Rule 2 of the CPC, particularly regarding allegations of corrupt practices and undue influence. The Court emphasized that vague pleadings against a party in general, without specific details of who, when, and how the Model Code of Conduct was violated, are insufficient to constitute a cause of action. The Court cited several Supreme Court precedents to support its interpretation of "material facts" and the mandatory nature of Section 82 of the RP Act.
