Supreme Court Allows Objections To Be Raised Against Admissibility Of Materials Produced In Petition Challenging Karnataka Congress MLA's Election

Upon hearing Karnataka Congress MLA TD Rajegowda's challenge to a 'vague' election petition filed against him by BJP's DN Jeeveraja, the Supreme Court today clarified that the parties would be entitled to raise their pleas relating to admissibility/relevance of certain documents filed as 'proof' by Jeeveraja after the filing of the election petition, at an appropriate stage.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order on Rajegowda's petition challenging Karnataka High Court's dismissal of an Order 7 Rule 11 CPC application, seeking rejection of Jeevaraja's election petition over lack of specific averments.

Dictating the order, Justice Kant said,

"We find that election petition is broadly based upon two sets of allegations - (i) the wrongful rejection of postal ballot papers (ii) alleged corrupt practices adopted by the petitioner/returned candidate. As regards the first set of allegations, it seems to us that there is no serious contest. The High Court will proceed with the election petition on that ground in accordance with law. As regard to the allegation of corrupt practices, we find that the respondent-election petitioner has placed on record a list of documents/material/proof for further support of his allegations levelled against the petitioner. Those documents/material are yet to be formally brought on record of the election petition. We are therefore of the view that the petitioner, election-petitioner shall be entitled to raise an objection regarding admissibility/relevance of these documents/material/proof at an appropriate stage and the High Court will consider such objections in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations made in the impugned order."

Briefly stated, Jeevaraja filed an election petition under Section 81 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 before the Karnataka High Court, challenging the election of Rajegowda from the Sringeri Constituency in Karnataka Legislative Assembly Elections, 2023. He sought inter-alia:

(i) Declaration of Rajegowda's election from Sringeri constituency as void, for reasons of malpractices, elections offenses, unethical acts and indulgences;

(ii) Alternatively, recounting of the votes polled and fresh declaration of results, or re-election of Sringeri constituency through ballot papers.

Jeevaraja alleged that Rajegowda spent approximately Rs.20 crores to bribe voters and there was "dense circumstantial evidence" to prove it. Further, he raised allegations regarding Rajegowda's possession and use of huge amount of black money, over-expenditure during elections, defamation and hate speeches.

In these proceedings, Rajegowda moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the election petition, claiming that the allegations were vague, evasive and did not satisfy the statutory mandate of Section 83 of RP Act. After hearing the parties on this point, the High Court reserved its orders.

On July 5, the High Court refused to reject the petition and aggrieved by the said decision, Rajegowda approached the Supreme Court.

On his behalf, Senior Advocate Dr AM Singhvi argued that the election petition is vague and evasive, and failed to satisfy the mandate of RP Act. It was stressed that the petition lacked specific averments, even though allegations of hate speech were levelled.

"What hate speech? Which speech did I give? Where? How? What did I say? [He says] False promises...no promise is shown to your Lordships...evidence can come later but one must state the nature, the skeletal of the evidence or charge".

The senior counsel beseeched that the High Court shall reconsider the averments made regarding hate speech, etc., even if it decides to go along with the postal ballot issue. Briefly however, he also assailed the lack of specific averments on the postal ballot issue, saying that Jeevaraja relied on the ECI handbook, which has been held by the top Court to be advisory, without pointing out any error.

On the other hand, Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora (for Jeevaraja) submitted that 32 documents (over 2000 pages) were filed by Jeevaraja, in support of the claims made. She relied on Section 86(5) of the RP Act to urge that particulars of corrupt practices alleged by the election petitioner in the election petition could be substantiated by him by amending the petition, in such manner as may be necessary in the High Court's opinion for ensuring a fair trial.

For context, Section 86(5) of the RP Act says, "the High Court may, upon such terms as to costs and otherwise as it may deem fit, allow the particulars of any corrupt practice alleged in the petition to be amended or amplified in such manner as may in its opinion be necessary for ensuring a fair and effective trial of the petition, but shall not allow any amendment of the petition which will have the effect of introducing particulars of a corrupt practice not previously alleged in the petition".

On the aspect of filing of documents, however, Justice Kant was quick to question, "Were these documents filed with the election petition?". Replying in the negative, Arora said, "they were filed with an application immediately after the election petition".

The senior counsel emphasized that Jeevaraja's application to place the documents on record has already been allowed by the High Court. She also argued that there can't be partial rejection, to the extent of alleged corrupt practices, of the plaint.

Ultimately, the bench agreed with Singhvi on the aspect that election petitions are required to be more accurate. It was also acknowledged that there was specificity insofar as ballot paper issue was concerned.

On the aspect of documents placed by Jeevaraja after filing of the election petition, Justice Kant said, "at this stage, the High Court must not have and is not expected to decide the validity of these documents".

The petition was disposed of with the clarification that parties would be entitled to raise averments about the admissibility/relevance of Jeevaraja's subsequent documents at the appropriate stage, which shall be considered by the High Court in accordance with law.

Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi Sr Advocate, Mr. Sanjay Anand Nulli, Sr. Adv, Nulli & Nulli, AOR for Petitioner

Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv, Mr. M S Shyamsundar, Sr. Adv, Ms. Ashima Mandla, AOR with Mandakini Singh, Adv for Respondent

Case Title: T.D. RAJEGOWDA Versus D.N. JEEVARAJA AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 20354/2024 

Click Here To Read/Download Order