Supreme Court Dismisses Karnataka Congress MLA's Plea To Strike Off Pleadings In BJP Leader's Election Petition

The Supreme Court on January 3 dismissed Karnataka Congress MLA TD Rajegowda's challenge to High Court's dismissal of his Order 6 Rule 16 CPC application for striking off  pleadings in an election petition filed against him by BJP's DN Jeevaraja.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order, stating, "in view of the specific liberty granted to the petitioner-returned candidate in para 7 of our order dated 27 September, 2024, in terms whereof, he is entitled to raise objection not only against admissibility but also on the relevance of the documents/material/proof relied upon by the election petitioner in support of the allegations contained in para 23 or some subsequent paragraphs in the election petition, we are satisfied that there is no necessity to entertain the subsequent application under Order 6 Rule 16 CPC".

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for Rajegowda, argued that a separate application under Order 6 Rule 16 CPC was moved to strike off the election petition pleadings as vexatious/vague. The same not being barred (on account of an earlier O7R11 CPC application), the Karnataka High Court was duty-bound to apply its mind and prevent continuation of the vexatious proceedings.

Calling the election petition a joke, the senior counsel referred to the 'vague' allegations raised therein, which included - "possibility of possession" and use of black money (for rallies, ads, etc.), expense of Rs.20 crores to bribe voters, downscaling of market value and subsequent purchase of huge properties/estates using black money, hate speech, etc.

At this point, the bench pointed out that the O6R16 CPC argument was available to Rajegowda even at the earlier O7R11 CPC stage. In reply, Divan conceded that a combined application could have been filed. However, he argued, failure to file the same did not mean that the High Court could not consider a separate O6R16 application after dismissal of an O7R11 CPC application.

"The problem is, your O7R11 application was almost on the same ground...we were little bit inclined that how can this kind of vague averments be allowed, but probably Section 86(5) (of the Representation of People Act) permits to lead evidence/file documents in support of the allegations of corrupt practices and all that", conveyed Justice Kant in response.

Referring to the Court's order dated September 27, 2024 (on O7R11 CPC application), whereby pleas relating to admissibility/relevance of certain documents filed as 'proof' by Jeevaraja after the filing of the election petition, were allowed to be raised at appropriate stage, the judge added, "we have said admissibility or relevance...in light of this, probably your rights are adequately safeguarded".

Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora, for Jeevaraja, on the other hand, submitted that once an O7R11 CPC application is dismissed, an O6R16 CPC application on the same ground is required to be dismissed in limine. "There is a direct judgment of My Lords...", she said.

Ultimately, Justice Kant told Divan that if prayer sought in the present case was allowed, the Court's order of September 27 would become infructuous and/or there would be passing of contradictory orders. "Probably you still have a right...let us assume there is a particular document. When you will object to it, you can probably also say that admitting such kind of document in evidence would amount to a scandalous pleading. Probably you can widen your contention...", said the judge.

Background

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 September 27, 2024, the top Court disposed of the case, clarifying 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.

Subsequently, the High Court considered an application filed by Rajegowda under O6R16 CPC for striking off certain pleadings in the election petition, on the basis that they were unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous and vexatious. On November 29, the High Court dismissed this application, noting,

"respondent already disputed some of the facts mentioned in the petition and he has already raised all the objections available to him for rejection of the plaint and all the contentions were negatived by this court. Such being the case, once again the contention of the respondent cannot be acceptable that the pleadings to be struck off."

Against this High Court order, Rajegowda filed the present petition.

Case Title: T.D RAJEGOWDA v. D.N JEEVARAJA, SLP(C) No.30486/2024