'Vague Allegations' : Supreme Court Dismisses Petition Challenging 2021 Assam Assembly Election Of AIUDF Leader Barbhuiya

In a major relief to All India United Democratic (AIUDF) leader and Assam MLA Karim Uddin Barbhuiya, the Supreme Court on Monday (April 08) dismissed the Election Petition filed by the former Assam BJP leader Aminul Haque Laskar (now a member of Congress Party) and others challenging Barbhuiya's 2021 Assembly election from the Sonai Legislative Assembly Constituency in Assam.

Finding the allegations levied by Laskar (respondent no.1) as vague and without any basis to constitute 'material facts' to institute the election petition, the Bench comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M. Trivedi held that such a petition may be dismissed as rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code

“Mere bald and vague allegations without any basis would not be sufficient compliance of the requirement of making a concise statement of the “material facts” in the Election Petition. The material facts which are primary and basic facts have to be pleaded in support of the case set up by the Election petitioner to show his cause of action. Any omission of a single material fact would lead to an incomplete cause of action entitling the returned candidate to pray for dismissal of Election petition under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC read with Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act.”, the Judgment authored by Justice Bela M. Trivedi said.

The appellant/Barbhuiya won the 2021 Assam Legislative Assembly Elections from Sonai Legislative Assembly Constituency defeating the then BJP candidate Aminul Haque Laskar.

The election petition was filed by the Laskar before the Gauhati High Court under Section 100(1)(b) and Section 100(1)(d)(i) of The Representation of the People's Act, 1951 ("RP Act") alleging 'corrupt practices' adopted by Barbhuiya while filing the nominations for contesting the Assembly Elections from Sonai Constituency. Laskar alleged that the Barbhuiya adopted corrupt practices while filing nomination for contesting the election.

The High Court dismissed Barbhuiya's application to reject the election petition. Challenging the High Court's decision, he approached the Supreme Court.

After perusing the election petition, the Supreme Court found that the allegations levied by the Laskar were bald and vague allegations without stating the material facts in support thereof as required to be stated under Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act.

Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act states that an election petition shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies.

“from the bare reading of the Election petition, it emerges that the respondent no. 1 has made only bald and vague allegations in the Election Petition without stating the material facts in support thereof as required to be stated under Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act. Apart from the fact that none of the allegations with regard to the false statements, and suppression and misrepresentation of facts allegedly made by the respondent no. 1 with regard to his educational qualification or with regard to his liability in respect of the loan availed by him for his partnership firm or with regard to his default in depositing the employer's contribution to provident fund, would fall within the definition of “Corrupt practice” of “undue influence” as envisaged in Section 123(2) of the RP Act, the Election petition also lacks concise statement of “material facts” as contemplated in Section 83(a), and lacks “full particulars” of the alleged Corrupt practice as contemplated in Section 83(b) of the RP Act.”, the court observed. 

The court clarified that where the allegations of “Corrupt practice” are labeled, the respondent no.1 was required to make a concise statement of material facts as to how the appellant had indulged in “Corrupt practice” of undue influence by directly or indirectly interfering or attempted to interfere with the free exercise of any electoral right.

“all the facts which are essential to clothe the petition with complete cause of action must be pleaded and omission of even a single material fact would amount to disobedience of the mandate of Section 83(1)(a) of the Act and an Election petition can be and must be dismissed, if it suffers from any such vice.”, the court observed while referring to the Judgment of Azhar Hussain vs. Rajiv Gandhi.

After knowing that the respondent no.1 had not made any written objections to the Appellant's nomination when the scrutiny of the nominations was done by the Returning Officer, the court observed that the non-mentioning of the particulars as to how such improper acceptance of nomination had materially affected the result of the election, is apparent on the face of the Election Petition.

“As stated earlier, in Election Petition, the pleadings have to be precise, specific and unambiguous. If the allegations contained in Election Petition do not set out grounds as contemplated in Section 100 and do not conform to the requirement of Section 81 and 83 of the Act, the Election Petition is liable to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of CPC. An omission of a single material fact leading to an incomplete cause of action or omission to contain a concise statement of material facts on which the Election petitioner relies for establishing a cause of action, would entail rejection of Election Petition under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 83 and 87 of the RP Act.”, the court observed.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed while dismissing the respondent No. 1 election petition pending before the High Court.

Counsels For Appellant(s) Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv. Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, AOR Mr. Mustafa Khaddam Hussain, Adv. Mr. Mohammad Nizamuddin Pasha, Adv. Ms. Rupali Samuel, Adv. Mr. Ibad Mushtaq, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Rai, Adv. Mr. Utkarsh Pratap, Adv. Mr. Lavkesh Bhambhani, Adv. Mr. Harshvardhan Thakur, Adv. Ms. Gurneet Kaur, Adv.

Counsels For Respondent(s) Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Dilip Majumder, Sr. Adv. Mr. Adeel Ahmed, AOR Mr. Abdur Razzaque Bhuyan, Adv. Ms. Racheeta Chawla, Adv. Ms. Sana Parveen, Adv. Ms. Anupama Gupta, Adv. Ms. Riya Dutta, Adv. Mr. Piyush Sachdeva, Adv. Mr. Md Gouse Muddin Khan, Adv. Mr. Raja Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. Abhaya Nath Das, Adv. Mr. Yogendra Kumar Verma, Adv. Mr. B C Bhatt, Adv. 2 Ms. Beena, Adv. Mr. Budha Deo Prasad, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Adv. Mr. V K Shukla, Adv. Mrs. Leelawati Suman, Adv. Mr. Satish Kumar, AOR

Case Title: KARIM UDDIN BARBHUIYA VERSUS AMINUL HAQUE LASKAR & ORS.

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 287

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment