Vague Pleadings, Can Be "Copied-Pasted" In Almost Every Election Petition: High Court Rejects Challenge To Election of Indore MP Shankar Lalwani
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench recently allowed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, thereby rejecting an election petition for not raising specific allegations or demonstrating a genuine cause of action.Finding the objections raised in the election petition to be generic, Justice Subodh Abhyankar observed-This court is of the considered opinion that the election petition...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench recently allowed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, thereby rejecting an election petition for not raising specific allegations or demonstrating a genuine cause of action.
Finding the objections raised in the election petition to be generic, Justice Subodh Abhyankar observed-
This court is of the considered opinion that the election petition is drafted in such a manner that the objections raised therein can be copied and pasted in just about every other election petition, questioning the election of any other Parliamentary seat anywhere in India. In such circumstances, when the pleadings of the Election Petition being vague and lacks the material facts, its outcome appears to be a forgone conclusion.
Shankar Lalwani, Lok Sabha member from Indore Constituency had moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the election petition filed by the Congress candidate Pankaj Sanghvi.
Lalwani contended that the petition was barred by limitation and that the Petitioner did not comply with the mandatory provisions under Sections 83(1)(c) and 81(3) of the Representation of People Act. It was further submitted that the petition suffered from non-joinder of necessary party since the Petitioner levelled allegations against the Returning Officer but did not make them a party in the matter.
He also argued that no cause of action is reflected in the election petition as it is vague and without any substantial pleadings to challenge the election process. Thus, it was submitted that the election petition being without substance was liable to be dismissed at the stage of trial to prevent the wastage of valuable time of the Court.
Per contra, the Petitioner argued that there was no merit in the contentions raised by the Respondent. With regard to the averment that his petition was vague, the Petitioner submitted that all the relevant facts were pleaded in the Petition.
Examining the submissions of parties and documents on record, the Court observed that the petition was neither barred by limitation nor was it suffering from non-joinder of parties. However, the Court found merit in the objection raised by the Respondent regarding the cause of action lacking in the petition-
A close scrutiny of the election petition reveals that the entire election petition has been filed with general objections only about the non compliance of the rules and guidelines issued by the Election Commission which are not at all case-centric in nature. In other words, there is no reference of any violation of guidelines issued by the Election Commission of India regarding any specific polling booth of the 26 Loksahbha Constituency, or any specific electronic voting machine, or any specific polling officer and in the presence of any specific election agent of the petitioner before whom such irregularity or non-compliance has taken place, but what is averred in the election petition is the various rules, instructions and orders which the Returning Officer is required to follow, regarding the operation of the electronic voting machine.
Thus considering the lack of pleadings regarding the material facts, the Court held that it is a fit case to invoke its powers under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint at the threshold. Accordingly, the application of the Respondent was allowed and the election petition was dismissed.
Case Title : PANKAJ SANGHVI v SHANKAR LALWANI
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 219