RP Act | Election Petitioner Can File Replication To Respondent's Written Statement If New Facts Aren't Introduced: Supreme Court

Explaining the law on the filing of the replication in an election petition, the Supreme Court observed that the High Court is vested with the power to allow the filing of a replication by an election petitioner against the written submissions of a returned candidate subject to the condition that the replication should not introduce new facts which goes against the facts originally contained in an election petition.

“In light of the analysis above, we are of the view that by virtue of the provisions of Section 87 (1) of the Representations of Peoples Act,1951, the High Court, acting as an Election Tribunal, subject to the provisions of the 1951 Act and the rules made thereunder, is vested with all such powers as are vested in a civil court under the CPC. Therefore, in exercise of its powers under Order VIII Rule 9 of the CPC, it is empowered to grant leave to an election petitioner to file a replication.”, the bench comprising Chief Justice of India Dr. DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said.

The case relates to the filing of the replication by the election petitioner in response to the written statement submitted by the returned candidate which was allowed by the High Court.

The non-disclosure of bank accounts, alleged in the election petition, was sought to be explained by the returned candidate in his written statement, against which a replication was filed by the election petitioner.

It was claimed by the appellant/returned candidate that the High Court erred in allowing the replication filed by the election petitioner on the ground that replication is barred by the provisions of section 81 (1) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 as it sets out a time-limit of 45 days for filing an election petition. Moreover, the appellant contended that no new facts/allegations could be brought out by the election petitioner through a replication after the limitation period of 45 days.

Per contra, it was contended by the respondent/election petitioner that as per Section 81(1) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, the High Court acts as an election tribunal and possesses powers vested with the civil courts under the Civil Procedure Code. He argued that as per Order VIII Rule 97 of the CPC, the written statement can be rebutted. Moreover, against the appellant's allegations of introducing new facts via replication, the respondent stated that no new facts have been introduced in the replication as it only seeks to rebut the explanation offered in the written statement.

Finding force in the respondent's contention, the Judgment authored by Justice Manoj Misra stated that the replication didn't introduce new facts being different from the main plea but sought to explain the averments made in the written statement.

“It is clear from above that the non-disclosure of bank accounts, alleged in the election petition, was sought to be explained by the returned candidate in his written statement. The replication only sought to meet that explanation. Similarly, the reply in the written statement in respect of other material facts pleaded in the election petition was sought to be dealt with, by way of explanation, in the replication. The replication does not seek to incorporate any new material facts or a new cause of action to question the election. It only seeks to explain the averments made in the written statement. Thus, in our view, leave to file replication was justified and well within the discretionary jurisdiction of the High Court.”, the court said.

Based on the above premise, the court dismissed the appeal after finding no merit in the appeal.

Counsels For Petitioner(s) Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, AOR

Counsels For Respondent(s) Mr. Anupam Lal Das, Sr. Adv. Mr. David Ahongsangbam, Adv. Mr. S Gunabanta Meitei, Adv. Mr. B R Sharma, Adv. Mr. Raj Singh, Adv. Mr. Mohan Singh, Adv. Mr. Sanajaoba Pheiroijam, Adv. Ms. Rajkumari Banju, AOR

Case Title: SHEIKH NOORUL HASSAN VERSUS NAHAKPAM INDRAJIT SINGH & ORS.

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 362

Click here to read/download the judgment