Election Petition Should Not Be Rejected At Threshold Where There Is “Substantial Compliance” Of RP Act Provisions: Supreme Court

In a setback to Manipur BJP MLA Kimneo Haokip Hanghing, the Supreme Court yesterday refused to allow her petition seeking rejection of the Election Petition under Order 7 Rule 11 Civil Procedure Code (“CPC”) pending against her before the Manipur High Court.

Kimneo Haokip was elected from Saikul Assembly Constituency in the 12th General Elections to the Manipur Legislative Assembly from BJP's ticket in 2022. The Election Petition was filed by the contestant from the same seat challenging the election of Kimneo alleging she had not disclosed her assets in her nomination papers and that she had indulged in “corrupt practices” in the election.

During the pendency of the Election Petition, an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the Election Petition was filed by the Kimneo Haokip/Appellant raising the ground that the Petition doesn't specify any corrupt practices alleged to have been committed by the appellant, nor is there any averment regarding concealment of her income/asset.

The High Court held that the Election Petition cannot be dismissed summarily under Order VII Rule 11 because the question of whether the appellant had any income or not and whether he had given a wrong declaration at the time of his nomination needs to be looked into in trial for which evidence has to be led by the parties and examined by the Court.

In the Election Petition, the respondent Kenn Raikhan alleged that the Appellant made investments worth Rs. 2 Crore but in the election nomination, she didn't mention the same. Moreover, the income of the Appellant was disputed by the Respondent as in the nomination paper she had mentioned ZERO income for FY 2021-22, despite serving as as a Committee Officer in the Assembly Secretariat, Manipur Legislative Assembly till 31.12.2021.

The respondent asserted that due to non-compliance with the requirement of furnishing true and correct information by candidates as required under Section 33 of the RPA, her election should be set aside.

Accepting the respondent's contention, the bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah observed that it cannot be said by the Appellant that a cause of action was not made in the Election Petition.

“On a perusal of the petition as a whole, including the averments reproduced above, it is clear that a cause of action has been disclosed by the respondent. Whether the appellant has concealed her investments and her income, and thus her nomination has been improperly accepted, is a triable issue.”, the judgment authored by Justice Dhulia said.

If There's Substantial Compliance Of Provision Than Election Petition Cannot Be Dismissed At Threshold

An argument was made by the Appellant that since the respondent had failed to comply with Section 83 of the Representation of the Peoples Act as the Election Petition didn't contain the particulars of any corrupt practices in the form of an affidavit which is alleged against the returned candidate, etc. therefore the petition was liable to be dismissed at the very threshold.

Rejecting such contention, the Court observed that the petition could not be dismissed at the very threshold where there is a “substantial compliance” of the provisions.

"The case of the present appellant before this Court is that if the provisions as referred above, wherein material details have to be given by the respondent and particularly the details of corrupt practices etc., has to be strictly construed and any deviation by the respondent on this requirement shall make the petition liable to be dismissed at the very threshold.

All the same, this is not what is the requirement of law. Rather the settled position of law here is that an Election Petition should not be rejected at the very threshold where there is a “substantial compliance” of the provisions."

Reference was made to the decision of Thangjam Arunkumar vs Yumkham Erabot Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 705 where the Court upheld the dismissal of the returning candidate's Order VII Rule 11 application by the Manipur High Court in an Election Petition upon non-compliance of filing an affidavit under the proviso to Section 83(1)(c). The Court held that the requirement to file an affidavit under the proviso to Section 83(1)(c) is not mandatory and substantial compliance is sufficient.

Since the Election Petition disclosed a cause of action and that there is substantial compliance with the requirements provided under provisions of RPA, therefore the Court refused to interfere with the impugned decision and held that the petition cannot be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

"In view of the reasons stated above, we see no reason to interfere with the finding of the High Court of Manipur that the Election Petition discloses a cause of action and that there is 9 substantial compliance of the requirements provided under provisions of RPA and thus the petition cannot be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.", the court held.

The appeal was dismissed.

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Mr. D N Goburdhan, Sr. Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR Mrs. Rajani K Prasad, Adv. Mrs. Sunita Rani Singh, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Ahanthem Henry, Adv. /Caveator(s) Mr. Ahanthem Rohen Singh, Adv. Mr. Tadup Tana Tara, Adv. Mr. Mohan Singh, Adv. Mr. Aniket Rajput, Adv. Ms. Khoisnam Nirmala Devi, Adv. Mr. Kumar Mihir, AOR

Case Title: KIMNEO HAOKIP HANGSHING VERSUS KENN RAIKHAN & ORS., C.A. No. 010549 / 2024

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 698

Click here to read/download the judgment