Violation Of 'Moral Code Of Conduct' No Ground To Declare Election As Void U/S 100 Of Representation Of People Act: MP High Court

Dismissing the election petition, Justice Vishal Dhagat observed-

Election petition can be filed on grounds mentioned in Section 100 of Representation of the People Act, 1951. Section 100 of the Act of 1951 does not mention violation of Moral Code of Conduct as one of the ground for declaring election as void.

Pleadings in election petition is to be construed strictly. Election petition is not a common law but statutory right and court in absence of precision and fatal defects in petition will dismiss the same. Petitioner failed to show accrued date of cause of action and petition on grounds not mention in Section 100 of the Representation of People Act, 1951.

Facts of the case were that the Petitioner had filed the election petition alleging that the Respondent/ Returning Candidate had flouted the moral code of conduct. It was contended that the Respondent created religious and sectional conflicts between two communities by giving objectionable speeches, thereby getting an edge over the Petitioner in gaining votes.

While filing the election petition, the Petitioner had not submitted the affidavit as required under Section 94-A of the Act. Later, he moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 for amendment. To justify the same, he argued that the requirement of proviso under Section 83 (Contents of petition) of the Act is not integral part of the election petition. He further asserted that the said application was filed to substantiate his claims in the petition and not to fill the gaps in the same.

Per contra, the Respondent sought dismissal of the petition arguing that while the Petitioner had asserted that there was violation of moral code of conduct on the part of the Returning Candidate, his petition was seeking declaration of the election to be void on the ground of corrupt practices. It was further submitted that the Petitioner had not mentioned the specifics in his petition and had not submitted the affidavit along with the petition, as required under Section 94-A of the Act. It was thus, contended that he could not be allowed to fill the lacunae in his case by filing additional documents as the same was also barred by the law of limitation.

Examining the submissions of parties and documents on record, the Court observed that the Petitioner had nowhere demonstrated in his petition that the Respondent had indulged in any kind of "corrupt practices"-

No ground in election petition has been raised regarding disqualification. Petitioner in election petition has made a pleading under Section 100(1) (d) (ii) of Representation of the People Act, 1951. Petitioner has not made any pleading regarding 'corrupt practices' and has submitted that respondent election be declared void for breach of 'Moral Code of Conduct'. Ground raised in election petition is not a ground in Section 100 of Representation of the People Act, 1951 for declaring election void. Court has framed preliminary issue whether there is non- compliance of Section 83 of Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Noting the same, the Court opined that since the Petitioner had not made any pleading regarding corrupt practices, therefore, it could not be said that there was any violation of Section 83 of the Act.

On the issue of considering the application seeking amendments moved by the Petitioner, the Court concurred with the submissions of Respondent and held that the proposed amendment sought to be introduced in election petition was barred under the law of Limitation and therefore, the application for amendment could not be allowed-

Apex Court in case of Anil Vasudev Salgaonkar (supra) has held that material fact is to be completed before expiry of period of limitation for filing election petition. Since date when cause of action arises has not been mentioned in election petition, therefore, in absence of date of accruing of cause action to petitioner, election petition cannot be permitted to continue.

With the aforesaid observations, the Court held that the election petition was not maintainable for want of ground under Section 100 of the Act and that the pleadings giving the cause of action to the case of the Petitioner were absent. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

Representations

Mr. Ankit Saxena- Counsel for the Petitioner

Mr. Abhijeet Awasthi and Mr. Amit Dave- Counsels for the Respondent