Supreme Court Stays Proceedings In Mohd Azharuddin's Plea Challenging BRS MLA Maganti Gopinath's Election To Telangana Assembly

The Supreme Court recently stayed further proceedings in an election petition filed by Congress' Mohammed Azharuddin (ex-Indian cricket captain) challenging the election of BRS leader Maganti Gopinath from Jubilee Hills constituency in 2023 Telangana Assembly elections.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order, while issuing notice on Gopinath's plea challenging Telangana High Court's rejection of his prayer to dismiss the election petition filed by Azharuddin.

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan appeared for Gopinath. Referring to the impugned order, he urged that the High Court misdirected itself and traversed issues not germane to the case. There was complete non-application of mind, he submitted.

Briefly put, Gopinath was the returned candidate in the 2023 Telangana Assembly elections from Jubilee Hills constituency. Challenging his election, Azharuddin filed an election petition before the Telangana High Court. He raised allegations with regard to irregularities, malfunctioning of EVMs; defective machines, mismatching of EVM data with Form 17C etc.

During the pendency of this case, Gopinath moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and Section 87 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, seeking dismissal of the election petition.

In support of his prayer for dismissal, he raised inter-alia the following contentions - (i) there was non-disclosure of cause of action; (ii) the averments in the election petition were vague; and (iii) there was no pleading that the result of the election was affected on account of the allegations made.

After hearing the parties, the High Court refused to reject the election petition. It observed in the impugned order as follows:

"the petitioner herein - returned candidate filed the petitioner under Order - VII, Rule - 11 of CPC to reject the election petition contending that there is no cause of action and that respondent No.2 has not followed required procedure as contemplated under the provisions of the Act, 1951 etc., are questions of facts which cannot be considered in a petition filed under Order - VII, Rule - 11 of CPC, more particularly, cause of action is bundle of facts which can be considered only on conducting of full-fledged trial. On the said grounds, this Court cannot reject the election petition under Order - VII, Rule - 11 of CPC."

Against the above order, Gopinath approached the Supreme Court.

Case Title: MAGANTI GOPINATH Versus MOHAMMED AZHARUDDIN, SLP(C) No. 26427/2024