Supreme Court Issues Notice On Congress MLA Chanda Gaur's Plea Against MP HC's Refusal To Dismiss Election Petition Filed By BJP MP Rahul Lodhi

The Supreme Court today issued notice on Congress MLA Chanda Singh Gaur's petition challenging Madhya Pradesh High Court's rejection of her plea under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to dismiss an election petition filed by BJP MP Rahul Singh Lodhi.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order, upon hearing Senior Advocate ANS Nadkarni (for Lodhi), and directed that in the meantime, proceedings in the election petition shall be deferred.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat (for Gaur) submitted that even if averments in the election petition are taken to be true, no case of "corrupt practice" is made out. "Under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the Court has to examine whether on a bare reading, the contents are made out or not", he urged.

After hearing him, Justice Kant conveyed to Nadkarni that Lodhi only appears to be humiliated having been grounded by a woman (Gaur) by a thumping majority. The judge suggested that Lodhi should reconcile with his defeat as there was a huge margin of 9000 votes. To this, the senior counsel replied by saying that the election petition is on a different issue ie pertaining to non-filing of proper affidavit by Gaur. Ultimately, the bench issued notice on the petition.

To give a brief background of the case, after the 2023 Legislative Assembly elections concluded in Madhya Pradesh on December 3, 2023, Rahul Singh Lodhi filed an election petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging the election of Chanda Singh Gaur from Constituency No.47, Kharagpur, District Tikamgarh on the ground that she had given false information/affidavit.

In response, Chanda Singh Gaur filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking dismissal of the election petition. In support of the dismissal, it was urged that though Rahul Singh Lodhi filed an affidavit alleging corrupt practice alongwith the election petition, the same was not in the prescribed format (Ref: Form No. 25 and Rule 94A of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961).

The prayer of dismissal was opposed by Rahul Singh Lodhi on the ground that even if the affidavit was not in prescribed format, it was a curable defect and the election petition was not liable to be dismissed on that ground.

After perusing the affidavit filed alongwith the election petition, the High Court observed that it was in terms of Form 25 as well as Section 83 of the RP Act and there was no case of non-fulfilment of Rule 94A of the 1961 Rules. Relying on the following excerpt from the affidavit, the Court concluded that it specified the allegation of 'corrupt practice':

“that the statements made in paragraphs 8 to 27 of the accompanying election petition about the commission of corrupt practice as defined in Section 123(1)(A)(a), (3), (3A) and (4) of the Act, 1951 and the particulars of such corrupt practice given in paragraphs 8 to 27 of the said petition and Annexures P/2 to P/6 thereto are true to my information."

In this backdrop, the O7R11 plea was dismissed and Chanda Singh Gaur approached the Supreme Court.

When the matter was taken up in December, 2024, the Court noted that it is only required to see as to what is the prescribed format for an affidavit under Section 83(1) of the Representation of the People Act and what kind of affidavit was filed in the instant case. Justice Kant summarized the "tentative understanding" of the bench as follows: "In a case where there are no allegation of corrupt practice, the filing of a defective affidavit is a curable defect. But in a case where corrupt practice is alleged, probably, filing of an affidavit in prescribed form is still a mandatory condition".

Case Title: CHANDA SINGH GAUR v. RAHUL SINGH LODHI, SLP(C) No. 29490/2024