2003 (9) TMI 773 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the election petitioner was estopped and precluded from raising the contentions in his election petition as regards the validity or otherwise of the 258 ballot papers? Whether the parties could even examine the Presiding Officer or other official witnesses as regards the contention as to whether the said 258 ballot papers were valid or invalid?

Summary

Issues:
- Dismissal of election petition by Jharkhand High Court
- Maintainability of the election petition under Sections 81, 83, and 86(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951
- Estoppel of the appellant from questioning the election
- Jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 86 of the Act
- Compliance with the provisions of Section 81, Section 82, or Section 117
- Dismissal of the election petition at the threshold
- Difference between pleading requirements for election petitions based on different sections
- Exceeding jurisdiction by the Tribunal

Analysis:

The Supreme Court of India heard an appeal against the Jharkhand High Court's judgment dismissing an election petition challenging the election of a returned candidate in the Panki Legislative Assembly Constituency. The respondent filed an application to dismiss the petition based on maintainability under Sections 81, 83, and 86(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and Rule 94A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. The Tribunal allowed the application, citing the appellant's acceptance of the rejection of 258 ballot papers during counting. However, the High Court upheld the dismissal, stating that the Returning Officer had no choice but to reject the ballot papers once a specific error occurred.

The Supreme Court found the Tribunal's approach erroneous, emphasizing that Section 86 of the Act mandates the dismissal of an election petition only for non-compliance with specific provisions, which was not the case here. The Court highlighted that the election petition could not be dismissed at the threshold even for non-compliance with Section 83 of the Act. Referring to previous judgments, the Court clarified that an election petition cannot be dismissed solely for alleged non-compliance with Section 83(1) of the Act.

Regarding the pleading requirements for different types of election petitions, the Court explained the need for material facts and particulars to establish a prima facie case for inspection or scrutiny of ballot papers. The Court emphasized that the issue of estoppel and the validity of the rejected ballot papers should be addressed during a full trial, allowing parties to present evidence and examine witnesses.

Concluding that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 86 of the Act, the Supreme Court set aside the order, leaving the issues raised by the respondent open for determination at an appropriate stage. The appeal was allowed based on these grounds.