9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the breach of paragraph 13 or 18 of the Election Symbols (Reservation & Allotment) Order, 1968 amounts to non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution, the Representation of the People Act, 1951, or any rules or orders made under the Act, thereby falling within the purview of Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act. 2. Whether the appellant was required to ascertain the circumstances and reasons for the Election Commission's instructions regarding the change of symbols before filing the election petition, and whether failure to disclose such facts amounts to non-disclosure of material facts, leading to an incomplete cause of action under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Breach of Paragraph 13 or 18 of the Symbols Order and Non-compliance with Provisions: The Supreme Court determined that the Election Symbols (Reservation & Allotment) Order, 1968 ("Symbols Order") is indeed an order made under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 ("Act"). The court emphasized that the Symbols Order was issued by the Election Commission under Article 324 of the Constitution, which grants the Commission superintendence, direction, and control over elections. The Symbols Order is also linked to Rules 5 and 10 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, which were framed under Section 169 of the Act. The court noted that the primary objective of the Symbols Order is to regulate the allotment of symbols to candidates in parliamentary and assembly elections. The court rejected the High Court's view that the Symbols Order was not an order made under the Act and, therefore, any breach of it did not amount to non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution, the Act, or any rules or orders made under the Act. The Supreme Court held that the Symbols Order, being an essential part of the election process, must be considered an order made under the Act. Consequently, any breach of Paragraph 13 or 18 of the Symbols Order could indeed constitute non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution, the Act, or any rules or orders made under the Act, thereby falling within the purview of Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act. 2. Requirement to Ascertain Circumstances and Disclosure of Material Facts: The Supreme Court found that the High Court was incorrect in its approach to striking out paragraphs 4 to 18 of the election petition on the grounds of non-disclosure of material facts. The court clarified that the appellant was not required to ascertain and disclose the circumstances under which the Election Commission issued instructions for the change of symbols before filing the election petition. The court emphasized that the appellant had disclosed all the material facts within his knowledge, and it was not his duty to anticipate the defense and plead facts related to it. The court noted that the High Court had erred in expecting the appellant to provide evidence and disclose facts not within his knowledge. The High Court's view that the appellant's failure to disclose the circumstances leading to the Election Commission's instructions amounted to non-disclosure of material facts was deemed incorrect. The Supreme Court highlighted that an election petition must contain a concise statement of the material facts necessary to formulate a complete cause of action, as required by Section 83 of the Act. The court reiterated that the appellant had complied with this requirement by stating the material facts necessary to show that the change of allotment of symbols by the Returning Officer was in breach of Rule 10(5) and Paragraph 13 of the Symbols Order, giving rise to a cause of action under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act. The court concluded that the High Court's order directing the deletion of paragraphs 4 to 18 of the election petition was unjustified. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and directed it to proceed with the trial according to law. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment striking out paragraphs 4 to 18 of the election petition, and directed the High Court to proceed with the trial in accordance with the law. The court emphasized that the Symbols Order is an order made under the Act and that the appellant had disclosed all necessary material facts to formulate a complete cause of action. The High Court's approach in striking out the pleadings was found to be erroneous.
|
