{"id":177886,"date":"2005-06-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-06-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-chidambaram-vs-suba-karuppiah-1st-on-14-june-2005"},"modified":"2015-11-23T15:34:48","modified_gmt":"2015-11-23T10:04:48","slug":"p-chidambaram-vs-suba-karuppiah-1st-on-14-june-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-chidambaram-vs-suba-karuppiah-1st-on-14-june-2005","title":{"rendered":"P.Chidambaram vs Suba. Karuppiah .. 1St on 14 June, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
P.Chidambaram vs Suba. Karuppiah .. 1St on 14 June, 2005<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 14\/06\/2005  \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE  C.NAGAPPAN            \n\nOriginal Application No.105 of 2005\nin\nElection Petition No.3 of 2004\n\n\nP.Chidambaram                          .. Applicant\/\n                                         1st respondent\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. Suba. Karuppiah                     ..  1st respondent\/\nElection Petitioner\n2.Navshad Alikhan \n3.Venkatachalapathy \n4. Irudayaraj\n5. Kayambu  \n6.Gunasekaran  \n7.Shanmugam   \n8.Chidambaram  \n1\/77, Thuvarampatti\nPanangudi Post \nNatarajapuram via\nSivaganga District.\n9.Chidambaram  \nMariammankoil Street, \nKovilur, Managiri Post\nSivaganga District.\n\n10.Chidambaram  \nKallamanakkudi \nPuduvayal Post \nKaraikudi Taluk\nSivaganga District.\n11.Subramanian Mutharayar  \n12.The Returning Officer\/\n   District Collector,\nSivaganga Parliamentary \n Constituency,\nSivaganga District.\n\n13.The Election Commission of India\nrepresented by its Secretary,\nNirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road,  \nNew Delhi - 110 001.\n\n(Respondents 2, 4, 5, 6, 7,8, 9\n and 10 are called absent and\nset exparte).                              .. Respondents\n\n!For  Applicant\/          :      Mr.G.Masilamani\n                                1st respondent\n                                Senior Advocate\n                                for M\/s.S.Silambanan\n                                and Gladys Daniel\n\nFor  1st respondent\/     :      Mr.R.Thiagarajan\n                            Election Petitioner\n\n\nFor Respondent No.11 :      Mr.S.Nagarajan\n\nFor Respondents 12  \nand  13                     :     Mr.M.R.Raghavan\n\n:ORDER  \n<\/pre>\n
        Application under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules and  Rule  3
\nof  the Rules of the Madras High Court Election Petitions 1967 read with Order
\nVI Rule 16 and Order VII and Rule 11 C.P.C.  and Sections 81 (1), 83,  86  and
\n100(1)(d)(i)(ii) of the Representation of People Act, 1951.\n<\/p>\n
2.   The  first respondent in the Election Petition No.3 of 2004 has filed the
\nabove application praying for striking out the  offending  paragraphs  in  the
\nElection  Petition  and consequently dismiss the Election Petition for want of
\nmaterial facts, particulars, evidence, cause of action and triable issues.\n<\/p>\n
3.  The first respondent in this application has filed the  Election  Petition
\nNo.3  of  2004  under Sections 80 and 80(A) read with Sections 10 0(1)(b), 100
\n(1)(d) and 101 of the  Representation  of  People  Act,  1951  seeking  for  a
\ndeclaration  that  the  election of the Returned candidate\/Applicant herein as
\nvoid and bad in law for  improper  acceptance  of  his  nomination  papers  to
\ncontest   from   No.33,  Sivaganga  Parliamentary  Constituency  by  the  12th
\nrespondent and also for a  declaration  that  the  election  of  the  Returned
\ncandidate  is null and void as vitiated by corrupt practices and set aside the
\nsame and consequently to declare that the next candidate, who has  polled  the
\nhighest  number  of  votes,  namely,  the first respondent herein, as returned
\nelected.\n<\/p>\n
4.  For the sake of convenience, the petitioner in the Election Petition,  who
\nis  the  first  respondent  in  this  application,  will be referred to as the
\n‘Election Petitioner’, while the applicant in this  application,  who  is  the
\nfirst  respondent  in  the  Election  Petition,  will  be  referred  to as the
\n‘Returned Candidate’ in this Order.\n<\/p>\n
5.  According to the Election Petitioner, he contested from  No.33,  Sivaganga
\nParliamentary  Constituency  as  a  candidate  of  the  All India Anna Dravida
\nMunnetra Kazhagam in the election conducted  on  10.5.2004  and  the  returned
\ncandidate  filed his nomination papers as the candidate of the Indian National
\nCongress Party.  The second respondent was the candidate of the Bahujan  Samaj
\nParty and  respondents  3  to  11 contested the election as independents.  The
\n12th respondent was the Returning Officer  and  the  13th  respondent  is  the
\nElection Commission of India.\n<\/p>\n
6.   The  averments  have  been  raised  from  para  5 onwards in the Election
\nPetition and they are referred to in seriatim.\n<\/p>\n
a) In paragraph No.5, it is stated that the returned candidate was a Member of
\nthe Indian National Congress which is a recognised  national  political  party
\nand  in  1996,  he was expelled from that party, as he joined the Tamil Manila
\nCongress (Moopanar), a recognised State Political Party and he  contested  the
\nSivaganga Parliamentary Constituency thrice, namely, in 1996, 1998 and 1999 as
\na  candidate  of the said Party and on account of difference of opinion during
\n2001 Assembly Elections, he was expelled from that Party and  he  founded  the
\nCongress  Jananayaga Peravai and registered the same as a Political Party with
\nthe Election Commission of India and it is found as an unrecognised registered
\nPolitical Party in Sl.No.204 of Table No.3  in  Tamilnadu  Government  Gazette
\n(Extract) Part V.  Sec.4.\n<\/p>\n
b)  In  paragraph  6, it is stated that the returned candidate was a member of
\nCongress Jananayaga Peravai on the date of filing of his  nomination  and  his
\ndeclaration as an Indian National Congress candidate is false and the election
\npetitioner’s  agent  sent  a  written  representation on 21.4.2004 to the 13th
\nrespondent  requesting  for  furnishing  of  details  regarding  the  official
\nposition  of  the  returned  candidate  in  Congress  Jananayaga Peravai as on
\n20.4.2004 and there was no reply from the 13th respondent.\n<\/p>\n
c) In paragraph 7, it is stated that as per law,  a  person  could  not  be  a
\nmember  of  more  than  one political party at a given point of time and while
\nregistering  a  political  party,  particulars  regarding  the  names  of  its
\nPresident,  Secretary,  Treasurer and other office bearers should be furnished
\nalong with an affidavit duly signed by the President\/General Secretary of  the
\nparty  and  sworn  before  a  First  Class Magistrate\/Oath Commissioner\/Notary
\nPublic to the effect that no member of the organization is  a  member  of  any
\nother political party registered with the Commission and individual affidavits
\nfrom  at least 100 members of the party duly sworn to the effect that the said
\nmember is a registered Elector and is not a  member  of  any  other  political
\nparty  should also be furnished and after registration of the political party,
\nany change in its name, head office, office bearers, address or in  any  other
\nmaterial  matters  shall  be  communicated  to the Election Commission without
\ndelay.\n<\/p>\n
d) In paragraph 8, the election  petitioner  has  averred  that  the  returned
\ncandidate  is either a founder leader or President or General Secretary of the
\nCongress Jananayaga Peravai and if he  had  resigned  and  joined  the  Indian
\nNational  Congress  subsequently,  that  fact should have been informed to the
\n13th respondent and if it is so  informed,  the  13th  respondent  could  have
\ninformed the same to the election petitioner on his request and since the 13th
\nrespondent  has not replied to the request of the petitioner’s election agent,
\nit is presumed that there is no change as  on  20.4.2004  in  the  particulars
\nfurnished by the Congress Jananayaga Peravai at the time of its registration.\n<\/p>\n
e)  In  paragraph  9,  it  is  further  stated  that  during  the  scrutiny of
\nnominations on 24.4.2004, the agent of the election petitioner  and  proposers
\nraised  serious objections before the 12th respondent seeking for rejection of
\nthe nomination of the returned  candidate,  but  the  objections  came  to  be
\nrejected  by  the  12th  respondent in his proceedings dated 24.4.2004 and the
\nagent of the election petitioner also sent a petition dated 25.4.2004  to  the
\n13th  respondent requesting it not to publish the final list of candidates and
\nstop the election till the disposal of the petition.\n<\/p>\n
f) In paragraph 10, it is  averred  that  the  12th  respondent  rejected  the
\nobjections without going into the root of the question and improperly accepted
\nthe  nomination  of  the  returned  candidate  as  a  valid  one  and the said
\nacceptance  is  wrong,  improper,  illegal  and  against  the  spirit  of  the
\nConstitution,  the  Representation  of  the  People  Act,  195 1, the Election
\nSymbols (Reservation & Allotment) Order, 1968, the Conduct of Election  Rules,
\n1961 together with the periodical instructions issued by the 13th respondent.\n<\/p>\n
g) The election petitioner has reproduced his objections made on his behalf to
\nthe  12th  respondent  on 24.4.2004 in verbatim in paragraph No.11 and briefly
\nthey are thus.  The returned candidate on the date of filing of nomination  is
\nthe founder and leader of the registered unrecognized political party, namely,
\n“Congress Jananayaga Peravai” and as per the Election Symbols (Reservation and
\nAllotment) Order, 1968 , the political parties are classified as recognized or
\nunrecognized  and  among  the  recognized  political  parties,  there  are two
\ncategories, namely, State  Party  and  National  Party  and  the  symbols  are
\nallotted  as  prescribed  therein  and the reserved symbol i s the recognition
\naccorded by the Election Commission to the particular political party  and  it
\nis  neither  a  chattel  owned by the party which could be bartered or sold or
\nmortgaged or gifted nor is it available to the candidate not  set  up  by  the
\npolitical  party  and  Schedule  X of the Constitution of India speaks about a
\ncandidate nominated by a political party and if a person leaves the membership
\nof a particular party, he would be disqualified from being  a  Member  of  the
\nHouse  and  it is an admitted fact that the returned candidate is not a member
\nof the Indian National Congress nor can he claim that he is a member  of  that
\nparty and it is learnt that he filed Forms A and B as if he is a candidate set
\nup by the Indian National Congress headed by Mrs.  Sonia Gandhi and a combined
\nreading  of the provisions of the Representation of People Act, the provisions
\nof the Election Symbols ( Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 coupled  with
\nSchedule  X of the Constitution of India would show that a candidate must be a
\nmember of a political party to qualify himself to make use of Forms A and B so
\nas to get the reserved symbol of the said political party whose Forms A and  B
\nhe  files  and  seeking  the reserved symbol in the absence of his membership,
\nwould make his nomination not a valid one.   The  returned  candidate  in  all
\nprobability  must  be deemed only an independent candidate and if it is so, he
\nshould be proposed by at least 10 voters, which is not the case  with  respect
\nto the  nomination  filed  by  him before the Returning Officer.  The returned
\ncandidate is not a member of the political party, which has given Forms A  and
\nB  in  his  favour  and he has not fulfilled the formalities that are required
\nwhile submitting the nomination by an  independent  candidate  and  hence  his
\nnomination has to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
h)  The election petitioner has further stated in paragraph 12 that the entire
\nelection process right from the beginning  to  the  announcement  of  election
\nresults is vitiated and materially affected the result of the election for the
\nfollowing reasons.    When  the  returned  candidate  filed  his nomination on
\n19.4.2004, he was not a member of the Indian National Congress and  hence  the
\ndeclaration  submitted  by  him  was  a false one and that vitiates the entire
\nelection process and it is  not  known  as  to  when  the  returned  candidate
\nresigned  from  the  primary  membership of Congress Jananayaga Peravai and on
\nre-joining enrolled himself as a  member  of  the  Indian  National  Congress.
\nNeither  he  nor  the  12th  respondent  disclosed  the  same  to the election
\npetitioner and the returned candidate has played a fraud on  the  Constitution
\nof  India  and  has  failed  to  maintain the high traditions of democracy and
\npurity of elections by misrepresenting that he  is  a  member  of  the  Indian
\nNational  Congress  and  he  no  longer  continues  to be a member of Congress
\nJananayaga Peravai and the 13th respondent has failed in its duty  to  provide
\nthe  requested  information  about  the returned candidate to the petitioner’s
\nelection agent and has not complied with the various provisions of law in this
\nregard and the improper acceptance of the returned candidate’s  nomination  by
\nthe  12th  respondent  has  materially  affected  the election results and the
\npolling trend and the returned candidate continues  to  be  a  member  of  the
\nCongress  Jananayaga  Peravai  as  evident from the various Press releases and
\nadvertisements given out by that party upon his victory in the election.\n<\/p>\n
i) In paragraph 13, the election petitioner  has  once  again  reiterated  the
\naverment  that  by  the  improper acceptance of the nomination of the returned
\ncandidate by the 12th respondent, the result of the election insofar as it  is
\nconcerned  with  the returned candidate had been materially affected and there
\nhad been violations of the provisions of the Constitution  of  India  and  the
\nRepresentation  of  the  People Act, 1951 and the rules framed thereunder, the
\nElection Symbols ( Reservation & Allotment) Order, 1968 and the Conduct of the
\nElection Rules and in view of the illegalities, the election of  the  returned
\ncandidate has to be declared as void and bad in law.\n<\/p>\n
j)  In  paragraph  14,  the  election  petitioner has further averred that the
\nreturned candidate by making a false representation  in  his  nomination,  has
\nindulged in corrupt practice which though not per se come under the purview of
\nSection  123  of  the Representation of the People Act, 1951, by confusing the
\nmind of electorate as being a Congressman.\n<\/p>\n
k) The election petitioner, in paragraph 15 of  the  petition,  has  mentioned
\nvarious  dates  on  which  cause  of  action  arose for filing of the election
\npetition.\n<\/p>\n
7.  The present Original Application has been filed by the returned  candidate
\nseeking for striking out various offending paragraphs in the Election Petition
\nby mentioning their numbers and consequently dismiss the Election Petition for
\nwant of  material  facts  and  triable  issues.    Hence, it is appropriate to
\nmention the contents of the affidavit in the same manner as stated therein.
\n“4.  The only ground in the Election Petition is that the  nomination  of  the
\nreturned candidate   was  “improperly  accepted”.    Presumably  the  election
\npetitioner seeks to invoke Section 100(1)(d)(i) of the Representation  of  the
\nPeople Act,  1951,  hereinafter  referred  to as the “195 1 Act”.  In order to
\ninvoke the said ground the election petitioner should prove the following:–\n<\/p>\n
(a)that the nomination paper was improperly accepted;\n<\/p>\n
(b)that the said improper acceptance has materially affected the result of the
\nelection; and\n<\/p>\n
(c)that the material effect  on  the  result  of  the  election  concerns  the
\nreturned candidate.\n<\/p>\n
5.   The  presentation  of the nomination papers, scrutiny, acceptance and the
\npublication of the list of contesting candidates are dealt with in Sections 32
\nto 39 of the 1951 Act.  Section 32 prescribes the qualifications for a  person
\nto be  nominated as a candidate.  Such qualifications are contained in Article
\n84 of the Constitution of India and in Section 4 of the  1951  Act.    Once  a
\nperson who possesses the aforesaid qualifications is nominated as a candidate,
\nthe nomination  paper  shall be scrutinized (U\/S.  36) and the list of validly
\naccepted candidates shall be prepared  [U\/S.36(8)].    Thereafter  a  list  of
\ncontesting candidates shall be prepared (U\/S.  38).\n<\/p>\n
6.   There  is  no  averment anywhere in the Election Petition that any of the
\nprovisions of the Constitution of India or of the 1951 Act has  been  violated
\nin the  present  case.    There  is  no  averment  or  pleading  as to how the
\nacceptance of the nomination of the applicant herein was in violation  of  any
\nmandatory  provision  of  the Constitution of India or of the 1951 Act; nor is
\nthere any averment or pleading as to how the acceptance of the nomination  was
\n‘improper’.   It  is in the background of the absence of any relevant averment
\nor pleading that the other averments in  the  Election  Petition  have  to  be
\nexamined  and  struck  out  if  the said averments are irrelevant, immaterial,
\nunnecessary, frivolous and\/or vexatious.\n<\/p>\n
7.  The  averments  in  paragraph  8,  and  in  particular  the  averments  in
\nsub-paragraphs  (b), (c) and (d), are irrelevant and unnecessary to the issues
\nraised in the Election Petition.  There is no obligation  on  the  part  of  a
\nperson\/citizen  to  inform  respondent No.13 (Election Commission) when he has
\njoined a political party.  There is no obligation that respondent No.13 should
\nconvey the said information to the election petitioner’s agent.  There  is  no
\npresumption  that since the election petitioner did not receive a reply, there
\nwas no change as on 2 0.4.2004 in the particulars furnished  by  the  Congress
\nJananayaga Peravai.   An enquiry into these aspects would be wholly irrelevant
\nand immaterial to the issues raised in the Election Petition.  Such an enquiry
\nwould be vexatious.  Hence, the averments in paragraph 8(b) to (d) are  liable
\nto be struck out.\n<\/p>\n
8.   In  paragraph  11  of  the election petition, the election petitioner has
\nreproduced in  verbatim  the  objections  made  by  him  to  respondent  No.12
\n(Returning Officer).  Although those objections were rejected by the Returning
\nOfficer,  since  the  objections have been reproduced in the Election Petition
\nand made part of the Election Petition, the applicant  submits  that  many  of
\nthose  averments  are  liable  to  be  struck  out on the ground that they are
\nunnecessary, irrelevant and immaterial to the issues raised  in  the  Election
\nPetition.   For  instance  the 5 th bullet and the paragraph starting with the
\nwords, “It is reliably learnt that???.” and ending with the words “gift it  to
\nanybody or  to  abuse  it”,  is  liable  to be struck out.  The said paragraph
\nraises no disputed question of fact or issue of law.  It simply  reflects  the
\nopinion of  the election petitioner.  No issue of fact or law can be framed on
\nthe basis of the averments in the said paragraph.  Hence,  the  whole  of  the
\nsaid sub-paragraph is liable to be struck out.\n<\/p>\n
9.   Similarly,  the 8th bullet and the paragraph starting with the words, “In
\nthe case of Thiru P.Chidambaram ??.” and ending  with  the  words  “cannot  be
\nallotted  to  other  persons by the Returning Officer”, is liable to be struck
\nout.  The said paragraph does not raise any disputed question of fact or issue
\nof law.  It simply reflects the opinion of the election petitioner.  No  issue
\nof  fact  or  law  can  be  framed  on  the basis of the averments in the said
\nparagraph.  Any enquiry into the averments in  the  said  paragraph  would  be
\nwholly  irrelevant  and  immaterial  to  the  issues  raised  in  the Election
\nPetition.  Hence, the whole of the said sub-paragraph is liable to  be  struck
\nout.\n<\/p>\n
10.   Similarly, the 9th bullet and the paragraph starting with the words, “As
\nalready mentioned???.” and ending with the words “as a matter of adjustment or
\nas a matter of will”, is liable to be struck out.  The said paragraph does not
\nraise any disputed question of fact or issue of law.  It simply  reflects  the
\nopinion and the presumptions of the election petitioner.  It is not founded on
\nany provision  of  the  Constitution of India or of the 1951 Act.  No issue of
\nfact or law can be framed on the basis of the averments in the said paragraph.
\nAny enquiry  into  the  averments  in  the  said  paragraph  would  be  wholly
\nunnecessary  and  irrelevant  to the issues raised in the Election Petition by
\nthe petitioner.  Hence, the whole of the said sub-paragraph is  liable  to  be
\nstruck out.\n<\/p>\n
11.  Similarly, the 10th bullet and the paragraph starting with the words, “If
\nthe  above  analogy  is accepted ??.” and ending with the words “have not been
\nfollowed by the said candidate”, is liable to be struck out as unnecessary and
\nirrelevant.  The said averments do not raise any disputed question of fact  or
\nissue of  law.   It is simply the arguments based on the election petitioner’s
\nerroneous understanding of the legal position and his presumptions.  No  issue
\nof  fact  or  law  can  be  framed  on  the basis of the averments in the said
\nparagraph.  Any enquiry into the averments in  the  said  paragraph  would  be
\nwholly  irrelevant  and  immaterial  to  the  issues  raised  in  the Election
\nPetition.  Hence, the whole of the said paragraph is liable to be struck out.\n<\/p>\n
12.  Similarly, the 13th bullet and the paragraph  starting  with  the  words,
\n“Neither  the  Tenth Schedule ???” and ending with the words ” above political
\ngimmicks”, are liable to be struck out as unnecessary and  irrelevant  to  the
\nissues raised  in  the Election Petition.  The averments in the said paragraph
\nare not founded on any provision of the Constitution of India or of  the  1951
\nAct.   They  are  simply  the  arguments  based  on  the election petitioner’s
\nerroneous understanding of the legal position and his presumptions.  The  said
\naverments do  not  raise  any  disputed  question of fact or issue of law.  No
\nissue of fact or law can be framed on the basis of the averments in  the  said
\nparagraph.   Hence, the whole of the said sub-paragraph is liable to be struck
\nout.\n<\/p>\n
13.  The averments in paragraph 12, sub-paragraphs (d), (e),  (g),  (i),  (j),\n<\/p>\n
(k)  and (l), are liable to be struck out as unnecessary and irrelevant to the
\nissues raised in the Election
\nPetition.  For the reasons stated already, there is no obligation to  disclose
\nany information  to  the  election  petitioner.    These  allegations  have no
\nfoundation in law.  There is no averment that any mandatory provision  of  law
\nhas been  violated.  No issue of fact or law can be framed on the basis of the
\nsaid averments in paragraph 12.  Hence, the aforesaid sub-paragraphs (d), (e),\n<\/p>\n
(g), (i), (j), (k) and (l), are liable to be struck out.\n<\/p>\n
14.  The averments in paragraph 12, sub-paragraphs (h) and (m) are  liable  to
\nbe struck  out.   The election petitioner has made an irresponsible allegation
\nof fraud without giving any particulars of the alleged fraud.  Under Order  VI
\nRule  4  of  the C.P.C., when a party pleads fraud, particulars of the alleged
\nfraud shall be stated in the pleadings.  Except for a bare allegation of fraud
\nno particulars have been given.  Even the allegation is based on a presumption
\nof the election petitioner and not on the basis of any facts.  There can be no
\nenquiry into the irresponsible and unsubstantiated  allegations  made  by  the
\nelection petitioner  in sub-paragraphs (h) and (m).  Any such enquiry into the
\naverments in the said paragraph would be vexatious, and wholly irrelevant  and
\nimmaterial to the issues raised in the Election Petition.  Hence, the whole of
\nsubparagraphs (h) and (m) are liable to be struck out.\n<\/p>\n
15.   It  is submitted that the averments in sub-paragraph (n) of paragraph 12
\nis liable to be struck out as unnecessary and irrelevant to the issues  raised
\nin the  Election  Petition.    No  reliance can be placed on any alleged press
\nreleases or advertisements.  In any event, no connection has been  alleged  or
\nestablished  between  the  returned  candidate (applicant herein) and the said
\npress releases and advertisements.  No enquiry can be made into the said press
\nreleases and advertisements.  No issue of fact or law can  be  framed  on  the
\nbasis of  the  averments  contained in sub-paragraph (n).  Hence, the whole of
\nthe said sub-paragraph (n) is liable to be struck out.\n<\/p>\n
        16.  It is submitted  that  the  averments  in  sub-paragraph  (o)  of
\nparagraph  12  is liable to be struck out as unnecessary and irrelevant to the
\nissues raised  in  the  Election  Petition.    The  averments  in   the   said
\nsub-paragraph are  not based on any facts or documents.  The said averments do
\nnot raise any disputed question of fact or issue of law.  No issue of fact  or
\nlaw can be framed on the basis of the averments in the said paragraph.  Hence,
\nthe whole of the said sub-paragraph ( o) is liable to be struck out.\n<\/p>\n
17.   It  is  submitted  that  the  averments  in paragraph 14 of the Election
\nPetition are liable to be struck out.  Although there is a bald allegation  of
\ncorrupt  practice and a reference to Section 123 of the 195 1 Act, there is no
\naverment regarding any corrupt practice or the kind of corrupt practice or the
\nprovision of law which is attracted.  Corrupt practices are defined in Section
\n123 of the 1951 Act and in as much as there is no specific allegation  of  any
\ncorrupt  practice within the meaning of Section 123 of the 1951 Act, there can
\nbe no enquiry into the bare allegation.  Since paragraph 14  of  the  Election
\nPetition  contains  only  a bare allegation, any enquiry into the averments in
\nthe said paragraph 14 would be wholly irrelevant,  immaterial  and  vexatious.
\nHence, the whole of paragraph 14 is liable to be struck out.\n<\/p>\n
18.   Without  prejudice  to  the above, it is respectfully submitted that the
\nElection Petition itself is liable to be dismissed in limine for  the  reasons
\nstated  in  paragraph  3  of  the  counter-statement  filed by respondent No.1
\n(applicant herein).  Unless the Election Petition furnishes or  constitutes  a
\ncause  of  action  or  ground  in support of the Election Petition as required
\nunder law, the Election Petition itself is not maintainable.  Since no  ground
\nof  law  in  support of the Election Petition, as required under the 1951 Act,
\nhas been made out in the Election Petition, it is submitted that  any  enquiry
\ninto  the  Election  Petition  would be unnecessary, irrelevant and vexatious.
\nHence, the whole of the  Election  Petition  is  liable  to  be  dismissed  in
\nlimine.”\n<\/p>\n
        8.   The  election  petitioner  has filed the counter affidavit in the
\nOriginal Application reiterating what he has stated in the  Election  Petition
\nand has stated that the returned candidate was a member of Congress Jananayaga
\nPeravai  on  the  date of filing of nomination on 19.4.2004 and admittedly, he
\nwas a member of two political parties as  per  his  claim  and  as  such,  the
\nnomination  submitted  by  him  is  vitiated and the same should not have been
\naccepted by the 13th respondent herein  and  that  would  vitiate  the  entire
\nelection process.    It  is further stated in the counter that the allegations
\ncontained in the Election Petition have to be substantiated  by  the  election
\npetitioner  only  at  the  time of trial and not at the interlocutory stage as
\nalleged by the applicant.  It is also stated in the counter that  whether  the
\nreturned  candidate  continued  to  be  the  founder  leader\/President  of the
\nCongress Jananayaga Peravai and when he re-joined the Indian National Congress
\nare all matters to be  considered  at  the  time  of  trial  and  not  at  the
\ninterlocutory stage.  According to the election petitioner, the material facts
\nand  material particulars, which are essential, would depend upon the cause of
\naction pleaded by him and the evidence that may be led by him at the  time  of
\ntrial  and  the pleadings as set out in the Election Petition cannot be struck
\nout or amended according to the whims and fancies of  the  returned  candidate
\nand  it cannot be contended by the applicant that it is an abuse of process of
\nCourt.  It is further stated in the counter that there is a clear  distinction
\nbetween  the  full  particulars  and  the  material facts and the Court cannot
\ndissect pleadings into several parts and struck out a portion which  does  not
\ndisclose  the  cause  of action as alleged by the applicant\/returned candidate
\nand the contention that the election petitioner has not disclosed  the  source
\nof  materials  to  substantiate  the plea of corrupt practices indulged by the
\nreturned candidate would be pre-mature and the Court has to  necessarily  take
\ninto  consideration  the  pleadings  in  entirety  and  it  cannot  be read in
\nisolation.  The election petitioner has further stated in the counter that the
\nreturned candidate has to necessarily prove and establish that he  was  not  a
\nmember of two political parties at the time of filing of his nomination before
\nthe  13th  respondent  and  substantiate  the  fact as to when he resigned the
\nprimary  membership  of  Congress  Jananayaga  Peravai  and  relinquished  his
\nposition  as  the  Founder leader\/President of that party and when he rejoined
\nthe Indian National Congress, and those matters  have  to  be  considered  and
\ndecided only  at  the  time of trial.  The prayer seeking for the rejection of
\nthe Election Petition under Order VII, Rule 11(A) C.P.C on the basis  that  it
\ndoes  not  disclose  the  cause  of  action  cannot  be  considered unless the
\nevidence, both – oral and documentary, are  let  in  by  the  parties  to  the
\nproceedings and  not  otherwise.  Lastly, it is stated in the counter that the
\npresent  application  filed  by  the  returned  candidate  is  nothing  but  a
\nfraudulent  and  vexatious attempt made with a view to avoid a fair trial with
\nregard to the various allegations levelled against him and hence it is  liable
\nto be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
9.  The returned candidate has filed a detailed reply denying the averments in
\nthe  counter  affidavit  by  stating  that  the  allegations  contained in the
\nElection Petition do not constitute a valid cause of action as required  under
\nlaw  and  no  pleadings in the Election Petition, if proved, would vitiate the
\nelection process; it is for the election petitioner to satisfy the Court as to
\nhow the acceptance of the nomination of the returned candidate was invalid and
\nimproper, since all official acts are deemed to have been done  correctly  and
\nproperly; the election petitioner has not produced any valid document to prove
\nhis  imaginary  allegation  about the membersh ip of the returned candidate in
\npolitical party or parties and further as to how and under what law  it  would
\ninvalidate  his  nomination; the burden is on the election petitioner to prove
\nas to how the election process is violated by referring the relevant provision
\nof  laws  and  producing  the  documentary  evidence  therefor;  the  election
\npetitioner’s  mere assertion that the acceptance of the nomination is contrary
\nto laws without specifically pointing out the relevant provisions  of  law  is
\nuntenable,  since  such  assertion  is general, vague and untenable in law; no
\nvalid document has been filed by the election  petitioner  to  show  that  the
\nreturned  candidate  was  a  member  of  the  Congress  Jananayaga  Peravai on
\n19.4.2004, i.e., on the date of nomination; the returned candidate is the best
\nperson to  speak  about  his  political  affiliation  and  his  statement  and
\ndocuments have been accepted by the Returning Officer; the election petitioner
\nwho  alleges  the  contrary  facts  alone  has  to  prove the allegations with
\ndocumentary evidence, but has not done so; the newspaper cuttings filed by the
\nelection petitioner are inadmissible in evidence and unreliable in an election
\npetition, since there was no authenticity for the news mentioned therein;  the
\nelection  petitioner  is  trying to convert the Election Petition into a Civil
\nSuit under C.P.C in general,  contrary  to  and  without  complying  with  the
\nstringent  provisions  of  Representation  of  People Act relating to Election
\nPetition; the election petitioner is trying to make a roving enquiry which  is
\nimpermissible  in law; it is not correct to state that the allegations made in
\nthe Election Petition are to be tested only at the time of trial and  even  at
\nthe  initial  stage,  the  Court can strike out the paragraphs in the Election
\nPetition which do not satisfy the legal requirement of the election  law;  the
\nallegation  that  the returned candidate was originally a member of the Indian
\nNational Congress and  later  on,  in  Tamil  Maanila  Congress  and  Congress
\nJananayaga Peravai are general statements without material particulars and not
\ngermane  to  the  gravamen  of charge in the Election Petition; the allegation
\nthat the returned candidate continued to be the founder leader of the Congress
\nJananayaga Peravai on the date of filing of  his  nomination  is  denied;  the
\nreturned  candidate has filed this application only on the basis that there is
\nno cause of action for the Election Petition and does not file  to  delay  the
\nfair  trial  as  alleged  by  the  election  petitioner; the allegation of the
\nelection petitioner that the returned  candidate  was  a  member  of  the  two
\npolitical  parties  on the date of filing of his nomination is nothing but per
\nse scandalous, fraudulent and vexatious and it is not  supported  by  material
\nparticulars  and  evidence;  it  is not correct to state that there is a clear
\ndistinction between the full particulars and  material  facts  and  the  Court
\ncannot  dissect  the  pleadings  into several parts and to find out which part
\ndoes not disclose the cause of action; the election petition cannot proceed to
\ntrial on the basis of newspaper reports, presumption,  assumption  only  since
\nthe  same is not permissible in law; the election petitioner has not disclosed
\nany material source, facts, particulars, documents or evidence to substantiate
\nthe plea of corrupt practices and hence the same has to  be  struck  out;  the
\naverments in the Election Petition would not lead to any conclusion, much less
\nto  irresistible  conclusion  of  valid cause of action even to try it and the
\nreturned candidate has placed valid material facts, circumstances and law  for
\nthe rejection of the Election Petition, since after striking out the untenable
\nportions  in  the Election Petition, there shall remain no relevant portion to
\nconstitute cause of action and triable issues in the  Election  Petition;  the
\nelection petitioner cannot throw the burden of disproving his suspicion on the
\nbasis  of assumption and presumption on the shoulder of the returned candidate
\nand the averments made in the counter affidavit have to be rejected in limine;
\nthe election petitioner has attempted to seek trial in an Election Petition in
\nrespect of matters which are not triable; the election law has to be  followed
\nstrictly,  consequently  pleadings and averments in an Election Petition which
\nare not in consonance with the requirement of election law have to  be  struck
\nout at the initial stage itself, so that the trial in the Election Petition is
\nnot  clouded  and miscarried otherwise than in compliance with, as required by
\nlaw.\n<\/p>\n
10.  The first respondent alone has filed his counter in this application  and
\nthe  learned  counsel  for  respondents 11 to 13 have made an endorsement that
\nthey are not filing any counter to the application.  All other respondents are
\nalready set exparte in the main Election Petition.\n<\/p>\n
11.    Mr.G.Masilamani,   learned   Senior   Counsel   appearing    for    the
\napplicant\/returned  candidate contended that the right conferred in the matter
\nof election is not a common law right and it is only a statutory  right;  that
\nthe only ground alleged in the election petition is that the nomination of the
\nreturned  candidate  was  improperly  accepted  invoking  the  provision under
\nSection 100 (1)(d)(i) of the Representation of People  Act  and  there  is  no
\naverment  or  pleading  as  to  how  the  acceptance  of the nomination was in
\nviolation of any mandatory provision of the Constitution of India  or  of  the
\nRepresentation  of  People  Act,  1951  and  as  to  how the acceptance of the
\nnomination was improper and has materially affected the result of the election
\nand also insofar as it concerned the returned candidate  and  hence  the  said
\naverment  is  frivolous  and  vexatious  and liable to be struck out; that the
\nfirst respondent\/election petitioner  has  made  irresponsible  allegation  of
\nfraud without giving any particulars of the alleged fraud and any enquiry into
\nit  would  be  vexatious,  irrelevant  and  immaterial;  that  there is a bald
\nallegation of corrupt practice mentioned in the election petition,  but  there
\nis  no  specific  allegation of corrupt practice within the meaning of Section
\n123 of the Act and there can be no enquiry into the bald allegation; that  the
\nelection petitioner has not filed any valid document to show that the returned
\ncandidate  was  a  member of Congress Jananayaga Peravai on 19.4.2004 i.e., on
\nthe date of nomination and the returned candidate is the best person to  speak
\nabout  his  political  affiliation  and  his document and statements have been
\naccepted by the Returning Officer and the authorised person  of  the  Congress
\nParty  has  certified  about  the  returned  candidate and has given letter of
\nrequisition, which was accepted by the  Returning  Officer  and  the  election
\npetitioner  is  trying  to  shift  the  burden of proof on the shoulder of the
\nreturned candidate, which is impermissible in law and the  newspaper  cuttings
\nfiled  by  the  election  petitioner are inadmissible evidence and there is no
\nauthenticity for the news mentioned therein and  the  election  petitioner  is
\ntrying  to  make  a  roving  enquiry,  which is not permissible in law and the
\nelection petitioner is trying to convert the Election Petition  into  a  Civil
\nSuit  under  CPC  in  general,  contrary  to  and  without  complying with the
\nstringent provisions of the Representation of People Act relating to  Election
\nPetition; that the allegation that the returned candidate is continued to be a
\nFounder leader of Congress Jananayaga Peravai on the date of nomination is not
\ncorrect   and  the  election  petitioner  has  not  disclosed  his  source  of
\ninformation and the material particulars with regard to  the  same;  that  the
\nallegation of the election petitioner that the returned candidate was a member
\nof  two political parties on the date of filing his nomination, is nothing but
\nper se scandalous, fraudulent, vexatious and unsupported by material facts and
\nparticulars or even list evidence as required in the election  law;  that  the
\nelection  petition  cannot proceed to trial on the basis of newspaper reports,
\npresumption and assumption only and the absence of material facts and material
\nparticulars  and  documentary  evidence  will  suffice  to  strike   out   the
\nunsupported averments in the election petition which are vexatious, irrelevant
\nand  immaterial and the election petitioner has not referred to any provisions
\nof law in the election petition, disclosing any disqualification flowing  from
\nthe   alleged   membership  of  political  parties  even  if  proved  and  the
\nnon-disclosure  of  the  relevant  provision  of   law   is   fatal   to   the
\nmaintainability of the election petition; that the election petition has to be
\ndismissed  in  limine  for want of material facts, cause of action and triable
\nissues and that the requirement of Section 83 of the Representation of  People
\nAct  is  mandatory  and  the  election  petitioner  has not satisfied the said
\nrequirement.\n<\/p>\n
12.  In support of the contention that the Representation of People Act  is  a
\nself  contained  enactment  and the election petition is neither a fundamental
\nright nor a common law right, but only a statutory right, the  learned  Senior
\nCounsel appearing for the applicant\/returned candidate relied on the following
\ndecisions of the Apex Court:\n<\/p>\n
“1) N.P.PONNUSWAMI  v.    RETURNING  OFFICER,  NAMAKKAL CONSTITUENCY, NAMAKKAL
\nSALEM DIST., AND OTHERS (AIR<\/a> 1952 SUPREME COURT 64).\n<\/p>\n
2) DHARTIPAKAR MADAN LAL AGARWAL v.  SHRI RAJIV  GANDHI<\/a>  (  AIR  1987  SUPREME
\nCOURT 1577).\n<\/p>\n
3) C.NARAYANASWAMY  v.    C.K.JAFFER SHARIEF AND OTHERS<\/a> (1994 Supp (3) Supreme
\nCourt Cases 170).\n<\/p>\n
4) JAIPAL SINGH v.  SMT.SUMITRA MAHAJAN AND ANOTHER (AIR<\/a>  2004  SUPREME  COURT
\n2066 :  (2004) 4 Supreme Court Cases 522).”\n<\/p>\n
        13.   The following decisions of the Apex Court were also relied on by
\nthe learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant\/returned candidate  for
\nthe  proposition  that  the  portions  of  the  election petition which do not
\ndisclose any cause of action are liable to be struck off under Order VI,  Rule
\n16  CPC  and  the  Court  is  empowered  to  strike  out the pleading which is
\nunnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious and  after  striking  out  the
\npleadings, if there is no triable issue remains to be considered, the Court is
\nempowered  to  reject  the  election  petition under Order VI, Rule 11 CPC and
\nthere should be no vagueness in the allegation of corrupt practice  and  there
\nshould be a full and complete statement of material facts in the allegation of
\ncorrupt  practice and the pleadings relating to it have to be scrutinized in a
\nstrict manner and to declare the election to be void under Section 100  (1)(d)
\nof  the Representation of People Act, the election petitioner has to plead and
\nshow that the result of the election insofar as it concerned to  the  returned
\ncandidate  has  been materially affected by the alleged improper acceptance of
\nany nomination or by the alleged non-compliance with the provisions of the Act
\nor of the Rules.\n<\/p>\n
“1) VASHIST NARAIN SHARMA v.  DEV CHANDRA AND OTHERS (A.I.R.<\/a>    1954  S.    C.\n<\/p>\n
513).\n<\/p>\n
2) DHARTIPAKAR  MADAN  LAL  AGARWAL  v.   SHRI RAJIV GANDHI<\/a> ( AIR 1987 SUPREME
\nCOURT 1577)  <\/p>\n
3) LALIT KISHORE CHATURVEDI v.  JAGDISH PRASAD  THADA  AND  OTHERS  (AIR<\/a>  1990
\nSUPREME COURT 1731).\n<\/p>\n
4) KRIPA  SHANKAR  CHATTERJI  v.    GURUDAS  CHATTERJEE  AND OTHERS<\/a> ( AIR 1995
\nSUPREME COURT 2152).\n<\/p>\n
5) JAGJIT SINGH v.  DHARAM PAL SINGH AND OTHERS<\/a> (1995 Supp (1)  Supreme  Court
\nCases 422).\n<\/p>\n
6) L.R.SHIVARAMAGOWDA  AND  OTHERS  v.    T.M.CHANDRASHEKAR  (DEAD) BY LRS AND
\nOTHERS<\/a> ((1999) 1 SCC 666 :  AIR 1999 SC 252).\n<\/p>\n
7) UMA BALLAV RATH (SMT) v.  MAHESHWAR MOHANTY (SMT) AND  OTHERS<\/a>  ((1999  )  3
\nSupreme Court Cases 357).\n<\/p>\n
8) SANTOSH YADAV v.  NARENDER SINGH (AIR<\/a> 2002 SUPREME COURT 241).\n<\/p>\n
9) SALEEM  BHAI  AND  OTHERS  v.    STATE  OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (AIR<\/a> 2003
\nSUPREME COURT 759).\n<\/p>\n
10) JAIPAL SINGH v.  SMT.SUMITRA MAHAJAN AND ANOTHER (AIR<\/a> 2004  SUPREME  COURT
\n2066 :  (2004) 4 Supreme Court Cases 522).\n<\/p>\n
        14.   The following decisions of the Apex Court were further relied on
\nby the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant\/ returned  candidate
\nfor  the  proposition  that  a  newspaper  report  is only a hearsay secondary
\nevidence unless proved by evidence aliunde:\n<\/p>\n
“1.  SAMANT N.BALAKRISHNA, etc., v.  GEORGE FERNANDEZ AND  OTHERS  etc.,  (AIR
\n1969 SUPREME COURT 1201).\n<\/p>\n
2.  LAXMI  RAJ  SHETTY AND ANOTHER v.  STATE OF TAMIL NADU<\/a> (1988 Supreme Court
\nCases (Cri) 633).\n<\/p>\n
3.  S.A.KHAN v.  CH.BHAJAN LAL AND OTHERS ((1993) 3 Supreme Court Cases 151).”\n<\/p>\n
        15.  Per contra, Mr.Thiagarajan, learned  counsel  appearing  for  the
\nfirst  respondent\/election  petitioner  contended  that the application is not
\nmaintainable in law and on facts and liable to be dismissed  in  limine;  that
\nthe  election  of  the applicant\/returned candidate has to be declared as void
\nand bad in law for the improper acceptance of his nomination,  overruling  the
\nobjections  raised  by  the  first  respondent\/election  petitioner before the
\nReturning Officer; that the  returned  candidate  was  a  member  of  Congress
\nJananayaga Peravai on the date of filing of nomination on 19.4.2004 and he was
\na member of two political parties and as such the very nomination submitted by
\nhim is vitiated and should not have been accepted; that the returned candidate
\ndid  not  possess  the requisite qualification since he was the founder leader
\nand primary member of the Congress Jananayaga Peravai at the time of filing of
\nhis nomination  and  the  election  petitioner  has  set  out  the  facts  and
\ncircumstances as to how there was violation of the mandatory provisions of the
\nlaw  and  the  allegations  can  be substantiated only at the time of trial by
\nletting in evidence and at this stage, it cannot  be  said  that  he  has  not
\ndisclosed  any  cause  of  action  or abused the process of Court as mentioned
\nunder Order VII, Rule 11(a) CPC; that  the  applicant\/returned  candidate  had
\noriginally  resigned from the Indian National Congress and joined Tamil Manila
\nCongress, a regional outfit and it is a mystery as to when  he  re-joined  the
\nIndian  National  Congress and he had not furnished any information about that
\nat the time of filing of his nomination as required by law and  those  matters
\nhave  to  be  considered  at the time of trial only; that the issue before the
\nCourt is whether the returned candidate was a member of two political  parties
\nat  the  time  of  filing  of  his nomination before the Returning Officer and
\nwhether the sequence of events set out in the election petition would  vitiate
\nthe  election process; that the particulars furnished in the election petition
\nwould amount to material facts and the election petitioner  would  demonstrate
\nthe cause of action at the time of trial; that the pleadings as set out in the
\nelection  petition  cannot  be  struck  out as sought for unless the applicant
\nmakes out that it is an abuse of process of Court and  process  of  law;  that
\nthere  is  distinction between the full particulars and the material facts and
\nthe Court cannot dissect pleadings into several parts and struck out a portion
\nwhich does not disclose the cause of action as alleged by the applicant;  that
\nthe  averment  that  the  election  petitioner has not disclosed the source of
\nmaterial to substantiate the plea of corrupt practice, at this stage, would be
\npremature and the application has been filed only to mislead  the  Court  with
\nregard  to  various  provisions more particularly, Sections 83(1)(a) and 86 of
\nthe Representation of People Act; that the applicant\/ returned  candidate  has
\nnot  set  out  in  detail  as  to  how  the  allegations  made against him are
\nunnecessary, scandalous and frivolous or vexatious and  abuse  of  process  of
\nCourt and the plea for rejection of the election petition on the basis that it
\ndoes  not  disclose  the  cause  of  action,  is liable to be rejected and the
\npleadings have to be tested  only  at  the  time  of  trial  and  not  at  the
\ninterlocutory stage.\n<\/p>\n
        16.   In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the first
\nrespondent relied on various decisions of the Apex Court.  In  fact,  some  of
\nthe  decisions  were  relied on by both sides for the propositions of law laid
\ndown therein.\n<\/p>\n
        17.  The learned counsel  for  the  first  respondent  relied  on  the
\nfollowing  decisions  of the Apex Court with regard to the distinction between
\nthe material facts and the material particulars and  the  power  of  Court  to
\npermit  the  election  petitioner  to  furnish material particulars at a later
\nstage and the requirement of law  pertaining  to  the  allegation  of  corrupt
\npractice:\n<\/p>\n
“1.  UDHAV SINGH v.  MADHAV RAO SCINDIA (AIR<\/a> 1976 SUPREME COURT 74 4) .\n<\/p>\n
2.  ROOP LAL SATHI v.  NACHHATTAR SINGH (AIR<\/a> 1982 SUPREME COURT 1559).\n<\/p>\n
3.  AZHAR HUSSAIN v.  RAJIV GANDHI<\/a> (1986 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 31 5).\n<\/p>\n
4.  F.A.SAPA  AND  OTHERS v.  SINGORA AND OTHERS<\/a> ((1991) 3 Supreme Court Cases\n<\/p>\n
375).\n<\/p>\n
5.  D.RAMACHANDRAN v.  R.V.JANAKIRAMAN AND  OTHERS  (AIR<\/a>  1999  SUPREME  COURT
\n1128).\n<\/p>\n
6.  V.S.ACHUTHANANDAN  v.    P.J.FRANCIS  AND  ANOTHER (AIR<\/a> 1999 SUPREME COURT
\n2044).\n<\/p>\n
7.  H.D.REVANNA v.  G.PUTTASWAMY GOWDA AND  OTHERS<\/a>  ((1999)  2  Supreme  Court
\nCases 217).\n<\/p>\n
8.  MAHENDRA PAL v.  RAM DASS MALANGER AND OTHERS<\/a> (2000) 1 Supreme Court Cases\n<\/p>\n
261).\n<\/p>\n
9.  MR.V.NARAYANASWAMY v.  MR.C.P.THIRUNAVUKKARASU<\/a> ( 2000 (1) Supreme 290).\n<\/p>\n
10.  REGU MAHESH ALIAS REGU MAHESWAR RAO (2004) 1 Supreme Court Cases 46)              <\/p>\n
11.  AJAY KUMAR POEIA v.  SHYAM AND OTHERS<\/a> (2004) 1 Supreme Court Cases 429).\n<\/p>\n
12.  BORGARAM DEURI v.  PREMODHAR BORA AND ANOTER<\/a> (2004) 2 Supreme Court Cases\n<\/p>\n
227).\n<\/p>\n
13.  SOPAN  SUKHDEO  SABLE  AND  OTHERS v.  ASSISTANT CHARITY COMMISSIONER AND
\nOTHERS<\/a> ((2004) 3 Supreme Court Cases 137).\n<\/p>\n
14.  JAIPAL SINGH v.  SMT.SUMITRA MAHAJAN AND ANOTHER (AIR<\/a> 2004 SUPREME  COURT
\n2066 :  (2004) 4 Supreme Court Cases 522).\n<\/p>\n
15.  CHANDRIKA  PRASAD  YADAV  v.  STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS ((2004) 6 Supreme
\nCourt Cases 331).\n<\/p>\n
16.  MAHADEORAO SUKAJI SHIVANKAR v.   RAMARATAN  BAPU  AND  OTHERS<\/a>  ((2004)  7
\nSupreme Court Cases 181).\n<\/p>\n
17.  RUPADHAR PUJARI v.  GANGADHAR BHATRA<\/a> ((2004) 7 Supreme Court Cases 654).\n<\/p>\n
18.  LIVERPOOL & LONDON  S.P.  & I ASSOCIATION LTD.  V.  M.V.SEA SUCCESS I AND
\nANOTHER<\/a> ((2004) 9 Supreme Court Cases 512).\n<\/p>\n
19.  CHANDRAKANT UTTAM CHODANKAR  v.    DAYANAND  RAYU  MANDRAKAR  AND  OTHERS<\/a>
\n((2005) 2 Supreme Court Cases 188).”\n<\/p>\n
        18.   The  learned  counsel  for  the first respondent cited some more
\ndecisions with regard to the dispute as to  the  symbol  between  two  parties
\narising  under  Election  Symbols  (Reservation & Allotment) Order and as such
\nthey are not relevant to this application and hence they are not mentioned.\n<\/p>\n
        19.   The  law  relating  to  election  petition   filed   under   the
\nRepresentation  of  People  Act,  1951 is well settled and the observations of
\nTheir Lordships of the Supreme Court in some of  the  landmark  Judgments  are
\nextracted below:\n<\/p>\n
        “1.  DHARTIPAKAR  MADAN  LAL  AGARWAL  v.  SHRI RAJIV GANDHI (AIR<\/a> 1987
\nSUPREME COURT 1577).\n<\/p>\n
        “Para 8.  The first question which  falls  for  our  determination  is
\nwhether the  High Court had jurisdiction to strike out pleadings under O.  VI,
\nR.  16, C.P.C .  and to reject the election petition under O.   VII,  R.11  of
\nthe  Code  at  the preliminary stage even though no written statement had been
\nfiled by the respondent.  Section 80 provides that no election is to be called
\nin question except by an election petition presented in  accordance  with  the
\nprovisions of  Part  VI of the Act before the High Court.  Section 81 provides
\nthat an election petition may be presented on  one  or  more  of  the  grounds
\nspecified in S.100 by an elector or by a candidate questioning the election of
\na returned  candidate.    Section  83 provides that an election petition shall
\ncontain a concise statement of material facts on which the  petitioner  relies
\nand  he  shall  set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice that he may
\nallege including full statement of the names of the parties  alleged  to  have
\ncommitted  such  corrupt  practice and the date and place of the commission of
\neach such practice.  Section 86 confers power on the High Court to dismiss  an
\nelection petition which does not comply with the provisions of Ss.81 and 82 or
\nS.117.  Section 87 deals with the procedure to be followed in the trial of the
\nelection  petition  and it lays down that subject to the provisions of the Act
\nand of any rules made thereunder, every election petition shall  be  tried  by
\nthe High Court as nearly as may be in accordance with the procedure applicable
\nto the  trial  of  suits  under  the  Code  of  Civil  Procedure, 1908.  Since
\nprovisions of Civil Procedure Code apply to the trial of an election petition,
\nO.VI, R.16 and O.VI, R.17 are applicable to the proceedings  relating  to  the
\ntrial of  an  election  petition  subject  to the provisions of the Act.  On a
\ncombined reading of Ss.81, 83, 86 and 87 of the Act, it is apparent that those
\nparas of a petition which do not disclose any cause of action, are  liable  to
\nbe  struck off under O.VI, R.16, as the Court is empowered at any stage of the
\nproceedings to strike out or delete pleading which is unnecessary, scandalous,
\nfrivolous or vexatious or which may tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay  the
\nfair trial  of  the  petition or suit.  It is the duty of the court to examine
\nthe plaint and it need not wait till the defendant files written statement and
\npoints out the defects.  If the court on examination  of  the  plaint  or  the
\nelection petition finds that it does not disclose any cause of action it would
\nbe justified in striking out the pleadings.  Order VI, Rule 16 itself empowers
\nthe  Court  to  strike out pleadings at any stage of the proceedings which may
\neven be before the filing of  the  written  statement  by  the  respondent  or
\ncommencement of  the  trial.    If  the  Court  is satisfied that the election
\npetition does not make out any cause  of  action  and  that  the  trial  would
\nprejudice,  embarrass  and  delay the proceedings, the court need not wait for
\nthe filing of the written  statement  instead  it  can  proceed  to  hear  the
\npreliminary objections  and  strike  out the pleadings.  If after striking out
\nthe pleadings the court finds that no triable issues remain to be  considered,
\nit has power to reject the election petition under O.V1, R.11????..\n<\/p>\n
        Para 14.  Before we consider various paras of the election petition to
\ndetermine  the  correctness  of  the High Court order we think it necessary to
\nbear in mind the nature of the right to elect, the right to be elected and the
\nright to dispute election and the trial of the election petition.    Right  to
\ncontest  election or to question the election by means of an election petition
\nis neither common law nor fundamental right instead it is  a  statutory  right
\nregulated by the statutory provisions of the Representation of the People Act,
\n1951.  There  is no fundamental or common law right in these matters.  This is
\nwell settled by catena  of  decisions  of  this  Court  in  N.P.Ponnuswami  v.
\nReturning Officer<\/a> 1952  SCR  218:    (AIR  1952 SC 14), Jagan Nath v.  Jaswant
\nSingh AIR<\/a> 1954 SC 210, Jyoti Basu v.  Debi Ghosal<\/a> (1982) 3 SCR  31  8:    (AIR
\n1982 SC  983).    These decisions have settled the legal position that outside
\nthe statutory provisions there is no  right  to  dispute  an  election.    The
\nRepresentation  of the People Act is a complete and self contained Code within
\nwhich any rights claimed in relation to an election  or  an  election  dispute
\nmust be  found.   The provisions of the Civil Procedure Code are applicable to
\nthe extent as permissible by S.87 of the Act.    The  scheme  of  the  Act  as
\nnoticed  earlier  would  show  that  an  election  can be questioned under the
\nstatute as provided by S.80 on the grounds as contained in S.100 of  the  Act.
\nSection  83  lays  down  a  mandatory  provision in providing that an election
\npetition shall contain a concise statement of material  facts  and  set  forth
\nfull particulars of corrupt practice.  The pleadings are regulated by S.83 and
\nit makes it obligatory on the election petitioner to give the requisite facts,
\ndetails and  particulars  of  each  corrupt  practice with exactitude.  If the
\nelection petition fails to make out a ground under S.100 of the  Act  it  must
\nfail at  the  threshold.  Allegations of corrupt practice are in the nature of
\ncriminal charges, it is necessary that there should be  no  vagueness  in  the
\nallegations  so  that the returned candidate may know the case he has to meet.
\nIf the allegations are vague  and  general  and  the  particulars  of  corrupt
\npractice  are  not stated in the pleadings, the trial of the election petition
\ncannot proceed for want of cause of action.  The emphasis of law is to avoid a
\nfishing and roving inquiry.  It  is  therefore  necessary  for  the  Court  to
\nscrutinize  the  pleadings  relating  to  corrupt practice in a strict manner.
\n???.\n<\/p>\n
        Para 30.  The aforesaid allegations  do  not  amount  to  any  corrupt
\npractice as contemplated by S.123 of the Act.  At best these allegations raise
\na  grievance  that  the  presiding  officers  did  not perform their duties in
\naccordance with law inasmuch as they  failed  in  their  duty  to  remove  the
\nposters  and  other  propaganda  material  from the polling booth and the hand
\nwhich was the election symbol of Rajiv  Gandhi  and  the  same  was  displayed
\nwithin 100  meters  of  the  polling  booth  in  violation  of the rules.  The
\nallegations do not make out any charge of corrupt practice.   If  at  all  the
\nallegations  could  be  a  ground under S.100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act for setting
\naside election on the ground of it being materially affected but no such  plea
\nwas raised.  Paras 54 to 58 do not deal with any corrupt practice.”\n<\/p>\n
                2.  L.R.SHIVARAMAGOWDA AND OTHERS v.  T.M.CHANDRASHEKAR (DEAD)
\nBY LRS AND OTHERS<\/a> ((1999) 1 Supreme Court Cases 666).\n<\/p>\n
        “Para 10.    That  apart, it is rightly pointed out by the appellant’s
\ncounsel that in order  to  declare  an  election  to  be  void  under  Section
\n100(1)(d)(iv), it is absolutely necessary for the election petitioner to plead
\nthat the result of the election insofar as it concerned the returned candidate
\nhad been materially affected by the alleged non-compliance with the provisions
\nof the Act or of the Rules.  We have already extracted para 39 of the election
\npetition which is the only relevant paragraph.  One will search in vain for an
\naverment  in  that  paragraph that the appellant had spent for the election an
\namount exceeding the prescribed limit or that the result of the  election  was
\nmaterially  affected  by the failure of the appellant to give true and correct
\naccounts of expenditure.  In the absence of either averment, it was  not  open
\nto the  appellant to adduce evidence to that effect.  It cannot be denied that
\nthe two matters referred to above are material facts which  ought  to  find  a
\nplace in an election petition if the election is sought to be set aside on the
\nbasis of such facts.\n<\/p>\n
        Para 11.    This  Court  has  repeatedly  stressed  the  importance of
\npleadings in an election petition and pointed out  the  difference  between  ”
\nmaterial facts”  and  “material  particulars”.    While  the  failure to plead
\nmaterial facts is fatal to the election  petition  and  no  amendment  of  the
\npleading  could  be  allowed  to  introduce  such  material  facts  after  the
\ntime-limit prescribed  for  filing  the  election  petition,  the  absence  of
\nmaterial  particulars  can  be  cured  at  a  later  stage  by  an appropriate
\namendment.  In Balwan Singh v.  Lakshmi Narain (AIR<\/a> 1960 SC 770:  (1960) 3 SCR\n<\/p>\n
91) the Constitution Bench held that an election petition was not liable to be
\ndismissed in limine  merely  because  full  particulars  of  corrupt  practice
\nalleged were  not set out.  On the facts of the case, the Court found that the
\nalleged corrupt practice of hiring a vehicle for the conveyance of the  voters
\nto the  polling  station  was sufficiently set out in the pleading.  The Court
\npointed out that the corrupt practice being hiring or procuring of the vehicle
\nfor the conveyance of the electors, if full  particulars  of  conveying  by  a
\nvehicle of electors to or from any polling stations were given, Section 83 was
\nduly  complied  with,  even  if t he particulars of the contract of hiring, as
\ndistinguished from the fact of hiring were not given.\n<\/p>\n
        Para 12.  In Samant N.Balkrishna v.  George Fernandez<\/a> ((1969) 3 SCC 23\n<\/p>\n
8) the Court said that if the material  facts  of  the  corrupt  practice  are
\nstated, more or better particulars of the charge may be given later, but where
\nthe  material facts themselves are missing, it is impossible to think that the
\ncharge has been made and later amplified and that would tantamount  to  making
\nof a fresh petition.  ?..??.\n<\/p>\n
        Para 16.    If  the  above well-settled principles are applied in this
\ncase, there is no doubt whatever that the election  petition  suffers  from  a
\nvery  serious  defect  of  failure  to  set  out material facts of the alleged
\ncorrupt practice.  The defect invalidates the election petition in that regard
\nand the petitioner ought not to have been permitted  to  adduce  any  evidence
\nwith reference to the same.\n<\/p>\n
        Para 16A.    We  have  already  extracted  paras  (f)  and  (g) of the
\naffidavit filed along with the election petition.  It does  not  disclose  the
\nsource of  information.    Nor  does  it  set  out  which part of the election
\npetition was personally known to the petitioner and  which  part  came  to  be
\nknown by him on information.  Significantly, paras (a) to (e) of the affidavit
\nstate that  the  averments  therein  are true to his information.  Para (f) is
\nsilent on this aspect of the  matter.    Para  (  g)  refers  to  all  the  42
\nparagraphs in  the  petition.    The  affidavit  is not in conformity with the<\/p>\n
prescribed Form No.25.  Thus there is a failure to comply with  Rule  94-A  of
\nthe Conduct  of  Elections  Rules.  It is a very serious defect which has been
\noverlooked by the High Court.”\n<\/p>\n
3.  JAIPAL SINGH v.  SMT.SUMITRA MAHAJAN AND ANOTHER (AIR<\/a> 2004  SUPREME  COURT
\n2066 :  (2004) 4 Supreme Court Cases 522).\n<\/p>\n
“Para 3.    On the above pleadings, a preliminary issue was framed by the High
\nCourt – as to whether the petition  lacked  in  material  facts  and  did  not
\ndisclose cause  of action.  By the impugned judgment, the High Court held that
\nSection 83(1)(a) of the said Act mandates  that  an  election  petition  shall
\ncontain  a concise statement of material facts on which the petitioner relies,
\nthat in the present case, the appellant had  failed  to  aver  and  plead  two
\nmaterial facts  viz.    that  his  application  for  voluntary  retirement was
\naccepted by the appointing authority before the date of scrutiny and that  his
\nrequest for waiver of the notice period of three months was actually accepted.
\nIn  the absence of disclosure of the above facts, the High Court dismissed the
\nelection petition.  ?.???\n<\/p>\n
Para 7.  Section 83 deals with contents  of  petition.    It  states  that  an
\nelection  petition  shall  contain  a  concise statement of material facts, on
\nwhich the petitioner relies and shall state full particulars  of  any  corrupt
\npractice  which  petitioner  alleges  and  which  shall  be  signed by him and
\nverified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure.  In the  case
\nof Sopan  Sukhdeo  Sable  and  others  v.   Assistant Charity Commissioner and
\nothers<\/a> reported in [2004 (2) Scale 82 :  (2004) 3 SCC 137] it  has  been  held
\nthat  the  Order  VI,  Rule 2(1) of CPC deals with basic rule of pleadings and
\ndeclares that the pleadings has to state material facts and not the  evidence;
\nthat there is a distinction between ‘material facts’ and ‘particulars’ and the
\nwords  ‘ material facts’ show that the facts necessary to formulate a complete
\ncause of action must be stated.  Omission of single material fact leads to  an
\nincomplete cause  of  action  and  consequently,  the plaint becomes bad.  The
\ndistinction between ‘material facts’ and ‘particulars’ was brought  by  Scott,
\nL.J.  in Bruce  v.    Odhams  Press  Ltd.   [(1936) 1 KB 697] in the following
\npassage:-\n<\/p>\n
“The cardinal provision in Rule 4 is that the statement of  claim  must  state
\nthe material  facts.    The word “material” means necessary for the purpose of
\nformulating a complete cause of action; and if any one “material” statement is
\nomitted, the statement of claim is  bad:    it  is  “demurrable”  in  the  old
\nphraseology, and  in  the new is liable to be “struck out” under R.S.C.  Order
\nXXV, Rule 4 (see Philipps v.  Phillipps (1872) 4 QBD 127):  or “a further  and
\nbetter statement  of  claim”  may  be  ordered  under Rule 7.  The function of
\n“particulars” under Rule 6 is quite different.  They are not  to  be  used  in
\norder  to  fill  material gaps in a demurrable statement of claim – gaps which
\nought to have been filled by appropriate statements of  the  various  material
\nfacts which  together  constitute the plaintiff’s cause of action.  The use of
\nparticular is intended to meet a further and  quite  separate  requirement  of
\npleadings, imposed  in  fairness and justice to the defendant.  Their function
\nis to fill in the picture of the plaintiff’s cause of action with  information
\nsufficiently  detailed to put the defendant on his guard as to the case he had
\nto meet and to enable him to prepare for trial.”\n<\/p>\n
Para 8.  The above dictum of Scott, L.J.  in Bruce’s  case  (supra)  has  been
\nquoted with  approval  by  this  Court in the case of Samant N.  Balkrishna v.
\nGeorge Fernandez<\/a> ((1969) 3 SCC 238).\n<\/p>\n
Para 9.  As to what is the material fact has to  be  decided  in  the  present
\ncase, in the context of the election petition under the said Act.  An election
\npetition is  a  matter of statutory right.  In the petition, the key issue was
\nwhether the appellant held an office of profit on the date of scrutiny.    For
\nthat  purpose,  the  appellant  ought  to have stated that on 13.3.2002 he had
\nrequested for waiver of the notice period; that the appointing  authority  had
\nreceived  the  notice  on  the  specified date and that his request for waiver
\nstood granted on the date of  scrutiny  and  he  ceased  to  be  a  government
\nservant.   These  were  the  material  facts  which  the appellant should have
\npleaded so that the returned candidates would not be taken by surprise.   They
\nare  material facts within his knowledge and ought to have been pleaded in the
\nelection petition.  Lastly, even the  letter  of  the  appellant  seeking  the<\/p>\n
waiver  of  the  notice  period  did  not  form part of the election petition.
\nHence, the High Court was right in dismissing the election petition  for  want
\nof material facts.\n<\/p>\n
                4.  S.A.KHAN  v.    CH.BHAJAN LAL AND OTHERS ((1993) 3 Supreme
\nCourt Cases 151).\n<\/p>\n
        “Para 21.   The  bone  of  contention  of  Mr.Parasaran  is  that  the
\nstatement  of  fact  contained  in  a  newspaper  report is merely hearsay and
\ntherefore inadmissible in evidence in the absence of  any  proof  by  evidence
\naliunde.   According  to  him,  in the present case there is no proof that the
\nalleged contemptuous statement was in fact made by the Chief  Minister  as  it
\nappears in  the Press note.  According to him, it is only for the applicant to
\nsatisfy the Court by adducing acceptable evidence that the statement  of  fact
\ncontained  in  the  report  is  true  and  that it calls for issue of suo motu
\nnotice.  According to him, the decision in P.C.Sen,  Re  (AIR  1970  SC  1821)
\ncannot  be  availed of by the applicant because in that case, the evidence was
\nled before the Court to prove that the offending speech was in fact  broadcast
\nby the Chief Minister on the All India Radio, Calcutta Station.  In support of
\nhis  submission that the news item cannot be the basis for initiating contempt
\nproceeding against the alleged maker  of  the  statement,  he  relied  upon  a
\ndecision of  this  Court in Samant N.Balakrishna v.  George Fernandez<\/a> (1969) 3
\nSCC 238 wherein it has been held that news items when  published  are  garbled
\nversions and cannot be regarded as proof of what actually happened or was said
\nwithout other  acceptable evidence through proper witnesses.  He also drew our
\nattention to the dictum laid down by this Court in Laxmi Raj Shetty v.   State
\nof T.N.    (1988)  3 SCC 319, 346 with regard to the admissibility of the news
\nitem appearing in a Press report.  The dictum reads thus:  (SCC  p.346,  paras
\n25 and 26)
\n        “We  cannot  take  judicial  notice of the facts stated in a news item
\nbeing in the nature of hearsay secondary evidence, unless proved  by  evidence
\naliunde.  A  report  in  a newspaper is only hearsay evidence.  A newspaper is
\nnot one of the documents referred to in Section 78(2)  of  the  Evidence  Act,
\n1872 by  which  an  alle  gation  of  fact  can be proved.  The presumption of
\ngenuineness attached under Section 81 of  the  Evidence  Act  to  a  newspaper
\nreport cannot be treated as proved of the facts reported therein.\n<\/p>\n
        It  is  now  well  settled  that  a  statement  of fact contained in a
\nnewspaper is merely hearsay and, therefore, inadmissible in  evidence  in  the
\nabsence  of the maker of the statement appearing in court and deposing to have
\nperceived the fact reported.”\n<\/p>\n
        5.  SANTOSH YADAV v.  NARENDER SINGH (AIR<\/a> 2002 SUPREME COURT 24 1).
\n        “Para 16.  The law as regards the  results  of  election  having  been
\nmaterially affected in case of improper acceptance of nomination may be summed
\nup as under:-\n<\/p>\n
(1)  A  case  of result of the election, in so far as it concerns the returned
\ncandidate, having been materially affected by the improper acceptance  of  any
\nnomination, within the meaning of S.10 0(1)(d)(i) of the Representation of the
\nPeople  Act, 1951 has to be made out by raising specific pleadings setting out
\nall material facts and adducing cogent  evidence  so  as  to  enable  a  clear
\nfinding  being  arrived  at  on the distribution of wasted votes, that is, the
\nmanner in which the votes would have been distributed if the candidate,  whose
\nnomination paper was improperly accepted, was not in the fray.  ???..\n<\/p>\n
        (4)  The  burden  of  proof  placed on the election petitioner is very
\nstrict and so difficult to  discharge  as  nearing  almost  an  impossibility.
\nThere is no room for any guess-work, speculation, surmises or conjectures i.e.
\nacting on  a  mere possibility.  It will not suffice merely to say that all or
\nmajority of wasted votes might have gone to the next highest candidate.    The
\nlaw requires proof.  ????.\n<\/p>\n
                6.  UDHAV SINGH v.  MADHAV RAO SCINDIA (AIR<\/a> 1976 SUPREME COURT\n<\/p>\n
744) .\n<\/p>\n
        “Para 37.    Like  the  Code  of  Civil  Procedure,  this section also
\nenvisages a distinction between “material facts”  and  “material  particulars”
\nCl.   (a)  of sub-section (1) corresponds to Order 6, Rule 2, while Clause (b)
\nis analogous to Order 6, Rules 4 and 6 of the Code.  The  distinction  between
\n“material  facts”  and  “material  particulars” is important because different
\nconsequences may flow from a deficiency of such facts or  particulars  in  the
\npleading.  Failure to plead even a single material fact leads to an incomplete
\ncause  of  action and incomplete allegations of such a charge are liable to be
\nstruck off under Order 6, Rule 16, Code of Civil Procedure.  If  the  petition
\nis based solely on those allegations which suffer from lack of material facts,
\nthe petition is liable to be summarily rejected for want of a cause of action.
\nIn the case of a petition suffering from a deficiency of material particulars,
\nthe  court  has  a  discretion  to allow the petitioner to supply the required
\nparticulars even after the expiry of limitation.\n<\/p>\n
        Para 38.  All the primary facts which must be proved at the trial by a
\nparty to establish the existence of a cause of  action  or  his  defence,  are
\n“material facts”.    In the context of a charge of corrupt practice, “material
\nfacts” would mean all the basic facts  constituting  the  ingredients  of  the
\nparticular  corrupt  practice  alleged,  which  the  petitioner  is  bound  to
\nsubstantiate before  he  can  succeed  on  that  charge.     Whether   in   an
\nelection-petition,  a particular fact is material or not, and as such required
\nto be pleaded is a  question  which  depends  on  the  nature  of  the  charge
\nlevelled,  the  ground  relied upon and the special circumstances of the case.
\nIn short, all those facts which are essential to clothe the petitioner with  a
\ncomplete  cause  of  action,  are  “material facts” which must be pleaded, and
\nfailure to plead even a single material fact amounts to  disobedience  of  the
\nmandate of Sec.  83(1)(a).\n<\/p>\n
        Para 39.    “Particulars”,  on the other hand, are “the details of the
\ncase set up by the party”.  “Material particulars” within the contemplation of
\nClause (b) of Section 83(1) would therefore mean all  the  details  which  are
\nnecessary  to amplify, refine and embellish the material facts already pleaded
\nin  the  petition  in  compliance  with  the  requirements  of   Clause   (a).
\n“Particulars”  serve the purpose of finishing touches to the basic contours of
\na picture already drawn to make it full, more detailed and more informative.”\n<\/p>\n
        7.  D.RAMACHANDRAN v.  R.V.JANAKIRAMAN AND OTHERS  (AIR<\/a>  1999  SUPREME
\nCOURT 1128).\n<\/p>\n
        “Para 8.    ?.For  the purpose of considering a preliminary objection,
\nthe averments in the petition should be assumed to be true and the  Court  has
\nto  find  out  whether  those  averments disclose a cause of action or triable
\nissue as such.  The Court cannot probe into the facts  on  the  basis  of  the
\ncontroversy raised in the counter.\n<\/p>\n
        Para 9.  Under Order VI, Rule 16, the Court is enabled to strike out a
\npleading  (a)  which may be unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious or\n<\/p>\n
(b) which may tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay  the  fair  trial  of  the
\nsuit; or (c) which is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court.  We have
\nalready  pointed  out that it is not the case of the first respondent that the
\npleading in the election petition is  vitiated  by  all  or  any  one  of  the
\naforesaid defects  mentioned  in  the  rule.   Hence striking out parts of the
\npleading in this case was not at all justified.”\n<\/p>\n
                        8.  REGU MAHESH  ALIAS  REGU  MAHESWAR  RAO  (2004)  1
\nSupreme Court Cases 46).\n<\/p>\n
                “Para 8.    What  is  “corrupt practice” is set out in Section\n<\/p>\n
123.  In terms of Section 83(1)(b), wherever corrupt practice is alleged, full
\nparticulars of such practice alleged including as full a statement as possible
\nof the names of the parties alleged to have committed corrupt practice and the
\ndate and place of commission of such practice has to  be  indicated.    Though
\nallegations of fraud etc.  in obtaining a false caste certificate have serious
\nimplications, under the Act and particularly as the language of Section 123(3)
\nspecifies and enumerates, they do not per se constitute corrupt practice.  The
\nfact  that  a  candidate  obtains  a  certificate that he belonged to and is a
\nmember of the Scheduled Caste\/Tribe  to  contest  as  one  belonging  to  such
\ncaste\/tribe,  essential  and  necessary  for  contesting  as  a candidate in a
\nreserved constituency, at any rate, cannot amount to  an  appeal  to  vote  or
\nrefrain  from voting on the ground of his caste\/tribe for the reason that what
\nwas obligated by the statute upon anyone to be entitled to contest in  such  a
\nreserved constituency  cannot  become  condemnable  as “corrupt practice”.  To
\nattract the vice of the said provisions as amounting  to  “corrupt  practice”,
\nindependent appeal or canvassing for votes by the candidate or his agent or by
\nanother person with the consent of the candidate or the election agent for the
\nfurtherance  of  the  prospects  of  the  election  of  that  candidate or for
\nprejudicially  affecting  the  election  of  any  candidate  is  an  essential
\ningredient.”\n<\/p>\n
        9.  MAHADEORAO SUKAJI SHIVANKAR v.  RAMARATAN BAPU AND OTHERS<\/a> ((200 4)
\n7 Supreme Court Cases 181).\n<\/p>\n
        “Para 6.   Now, it is no doubt true that all material facts have to be
\nset out in an election petition.  If material facts are not stated in a plaint
\nor a petition, the same is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone as  the
\ncase would  be  covered  by clause (a) of Rule 11 of Order 7 of the Code.  The
\nquestion, however, is as to whether the petitioner had set out material  facts
\nin the  election  petition.   The expression “material facts” has neither been
\ndefined in the Act nor in the Code.  It may be stated that the material  facts
\nare those  facts upon which a party relies for his claim or defence.  In other
\nwords, material facts are facts upon which the plaintiff’s cause of action  or
\nthe defendant’s  defence  depends.    What  particulars  could  be  said to be
\nmaterial facts would depend upon the  facts  of  each  case  and  no  rule  of
\nuniversal application  can be laid down.  It is, however, absolutely essential
\nthat all basic and primary facts which must be proved  at  the  trial  by  the
\nparty  to establish existence of cause of action or defence are material facts
\nand must be stated in the pleading of the party.\n<\/p>\n
        Para 7.  But, it is equally, well settled that  there  is  distinction
\nbetween “material  facts”  and  “particulars”.   Material facts are primary or
\nbasic facts which must be pleaded by the petitioner in support of the case set
\nup by him either to prove his cause of action or defence.  Particulars, on the
\nother hand, are details in support of material facts  pleaded  by  the  party.
\nThey amplify, refine and embellish material facts by giving finishing touch to
\nthe  basic  contours  of  a  picture already drawn so as to make it full, more
\nclear and more informative.  Particulars ensure  conduct  of  fair  trial  and
\nwould not take the opposite party by surprise.”\n<\/p>\n
        20.   Keeping  in view the above decisions and the relevant provisions
\nof law, the relief of striking out the offending paragraphs and the  rejection
\nof  election  petition  sought  for in the application has to be considered by
\nexamining the relevant paragraphs in the election petition.\n<\/p>\n
21.  In the averments in paragraphs 8(b) to (d) of the election  petition,  it
\nis  averred  that  if  the  applicant\/returned  candidate,  has  joined Indian
\nNational Congress, this fact should  have  been  informed  to  the  thirteenth
\nrespondent,  viz.,  Election  Commission  of  India,  and  if  it  is  so, the
\nthirteenth  respondent  could  have  informed  the  same   to   the   election
\npetitioner’s  agent on his request and since the thirteenth respondent has not
\nreplied, it is presumed that there  is  no  change  as  on  20.4.2004  in  the
\nparticulars  furnished  by  Congress  Jananayaga  Peravai  at  the time of its
\nregistration.  Document No.1 filed alongwith the  Election  Petition,  is  the
\nxerox  copy  of the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Amendment Notification dated
\n29.3.2004 to Election Symbols (Reservation & Allotment) Order, 1968 issued  by
\nthe Election  Commission of India.  Document No.2 is a Fax transmission report
\ndated 21.4.2004.  Document  No.3  is  the  xerox  copy  of  the  letter  dated
\n21.4.2004  sent  by one Haja Najmuddin claiming to be the chief election agent
\nof  the  election  petitioner,  addressed  to  the  13th  respondent   seeking
\ninformation  about  the  returned  candidate’s  official  status  in  Congress
\nJananayaga Peravai as on 20.4.2004.\n<\/p>\n
        22.  The contention of the applicant\/returned candidate is that  there
\nis  no obligation on the part of a citizen to inform the 13th respondent viz.,
\nthe Election Commission, as to when he joined a political party and  there  is
\nno  obligation  that  13th  respondent  should  convey  the information to the
\nelection petitioner’s agent  and  there  is  no  presumption  that  since  the
\nelection  petitioner  did  not  receive  the  reply, there was no change as on
\n20.4.2004 in the particulars given by  Congress  Jananayaga  Peravai  and  any
\nenquiry  into  these  aspects would be irrelevant and immaterial to the issues
\nraised in the election petition and such an enquiry  would  be  vexatious  and
\nhence the averments are liable to be struck out.\n<\/p>\n
        23.   It  is  true  that the election petitioner has not disclosed the
\nprovision of law under which the parties\/citizens are required to  inform  the
\nElection    Commission    furnishing    the   information   about   admission,
\nresignation\/removal of their membership in the registered political party  and
\nthe  Election Commission is required to maintain information about the members
\nof political parties  and  the  obligation  on  their  part  to  furnish  such
\nmembership information  on  request.  In the absence of disclosure of relevant
\nprovision of law constituting the material facts from  which  the  presumption
\ncan flow, those averments are liable to be struck out as sought for.\n<\/p>\n
        24.   In  paragraph  No.11  of  the  election  petition,  the election
\npetitioner has reproduced in verbatim the objections made by him to  the  12th
\nrespondent,  viz.,  the  Returning  Officer and although those objections were
\nrejected by the Returning Officer, they have been reproduced in  the  election
\npetition  and  according  to  the  applicant\/returned  candidate many of those
\naverments are liable to be struck out on the ground that they are unnecessary,
\nirrelevant and immaterial to the issues raised in the  election  petition  and
\nthe  applicant  has sought for striking out the bullets bearing Nos.5, 8 to 10
\nand 13.\n<\/p>\n
25.  In the 5th bullet, the election petitioner has stated that  the  returned
\ncandidate  has  filed  Forms  A and B, as if he is the candidate set up by the
\nIndian National Congress and the reserved symbol is the  recognition  accorded
\nby  the  Election Commission identifying the particular political party and it
\nis neither a chattel owned by the said political party which could be bartered
\nor sold or mortgaged or gifted nor it is available to the candidate not set up
\nby the political party and it is not the property to be gifted to  anybody  or
\nto be abused.\n<\/p>\n
        26.   The  learned Senior Counsel for the applicant\/returned candidate
\nsubmitted that the election petitioner has not stated clearly  as  to  whether
\nthe  Indian  National Congress violated any law by setting up the applicant as
\ntheir candidate and whether the applicant has violated any law by  filing  the
\nnomination  as  the  candidate  of  Indian  National Congress and the averment
\nregarding reserved symbol being bartered, mortgaged, gifted or sold  is  vague
\nand  does  not specify the provision of law under which the said assumption is
\nmade and how and under what provision of law this averment  shall  render  the
\nacceptance of the nomination of the applicant improper and constitute a ground
\nto  challenge  the  election and hence the averments in the said sub-paragraph
\nare unnecessary, frivolous, vexatious, scandalous and have to be  struck  off.
\nIt  is true that the said sub-paragraph raised no disputed question of fact or
\nissue of law and it reflects only the opinion of the election  petitioner  and
\nno  issue  of  fact or law can be framed and the sub-paragraph is liable to be
\nstruck out as prayed for.\n<\/p>\n
        27.  In the 8th bullet, the election petitioner has stated that it  is
\nan admitted fact that the returned candidate is neither a member of the Indian
\nNational  Congress nor can he claim so and hence the question of membership of
\nthe said political party whose symbol he wants to utilize for the  purpose  of
\nelection  cannot  be  allotted  to  him  and  only a person who is a member or
\ncard-holder of the particular political party can be given the reserved symbol
\nof that political party and the same cannot be allotted to  other  persons  by
\nthe Returning Officer.\n<\/p>\n
        28.   The  learned Senior Counsel for the applicant\/returned candidate
\ncontended that the averment that it is an  admitted  fact  that  the  returned
\ncandidate  is  not  a  member  of Indian National Congress is a mere imaginary
\nassertion and it is not supported by any material fact on the basis  of  which
\nit  can  be  said to be an admission and it is not stated as to who, where and
\nwhen admitted as said above and the election petitioner has neither  furnished
\ndocumentary evidence nor pleaded the material facts, particulars regarding the
\nsaid  assertion  of alleged admission and the election petitioner has also not
\ndisclosed the source of information and hence the said averment is  liable  to
\nbe struck  out.    He  further  contended  that  the averment stating that the
\nreturned candidate cannot claim that he is a member of that party is  also  an
\nempty  assumption  and  imagination  of  election  petitioner and liable to be
\nstruck off for want of material facts and particulars.  According to him,  the
\naverment  to  the  effect  that  the  symbol  of the political party which the
\napplicant wants to utilize cannot be allotted to him, is also not supported by
\nany material fact and no material fact is pleaded to show and prove as to  how
\nthe  acceptance  of  the  nomination  and allotment of the symbol reserved for
\nIndian National Congress to the applicant has materially affected  the  result
\nof  the  election and the averment that the Returning Officer cannot allot the
\nsymbol to the applicant is also not supported by any material fact as  to  why
\nit  should  not be allotted and the specific provision of law which prevent or
\nrender the allotment of symbol as improper has also not been  stated  and  the
\nsub-paragraph is liable to be struck off.\n<\/p>\n
        29.   The  learned  counsel for the election petitioner contended that
\nthe allegations contained in paragraph 11 of  the  election  petition  can  be
\nsubstantiated  only  at the time of trial by letting in evidence and it cannot
\nbe decided at this stage.\n<\/p>\n
        30.  The above sub-paragraph only reflects the opinion of the election
\npetitioner and no issue of fact or law can be framed and any enquiry into  the
\nsaid averments would only be irrelevant and immaterial and the averment has to
\nbe struck out as prayed for.\n<\/p>\n
        31.   In  the 9th bullet, the election petitioner has averred that the
\nelection symbol is not a movable property that could be bartered away and  the
\nTenth  Schedule  of  the Constitution of India deals about the membership of a
\nparticular person tracing  him  to  the  said  political  party  and  by  mere
\nallotment  of  symbol,  a  person  will  not  be deemed to be a member of that
\npolitical party and the membership is the basic fabric for any  person  to  be
\nthe  candidate  in  an  election to whom the reserved symbol of the particular
\npolitical party can be allotted and at the will and pleasure of the  political
\nparty,  a third party unconnected with the political party, cannot be allotted
\nwith the symbol as a matter of grace or as a matter of will.\n<\/p>\n
        32.  The learned Senior Counsel for the  applicant\/returned  candidate
\ncontended  that  these averments do not specifically state as to how the Tenth
\nSchedule of the Constitution of India shall apply to the election petition and
\nTenth Schedule relates to the certain conduct of the elected candidate and has
\nno relevance to a stage prior to the declaration of the election  and  further
\nthe  election  petitioner has failed to state the material facts as to why the
\nsymbol of Indian National Congress  should  not  have  been  allotted  to  the
\napplicant  and which provision of the Representation of People Act or Election
\nSymbols ( Reservation & Allotment) Order has been violated while allotting the
\nsymbol and the averments contained no material facts and liable to  be  struck
\noff as irrelevant.\n<\/p>\n
33.   Nothing  in  reply is found in the counter of the election petitioner to
\nthis averment of the applicant.\n<\/p>\n
        34.  The Tenth Schedule of the  Constitution  of  India  contains  the
\nprovisions as to disqualification on ground of defection and it will come into
\nplay  only  after  declaration  of  election  and  it has no application to an
\nelection petition.  The averments in this  subparagraph  contain  no  material
\nfact  as  rightly  contended  by  the applicant and it has to be struck out as
\nprayed for.\n<\/p>\n
        35.  In the 10th bullet, the election petitioner has stated  that  the
\napplicant  is no longer a candidate set up by the Indian National Congress and
\nin such a situation, he loses the character of  the  candidate  set  up  by  a
\npolitical  party  which  has  got  the  benefit  under  the  Election  Symbols
\n(Reservation & Allotment) Order and if that be so, he is deemed to be only  an
\nindependent  candidate and as such he should have been proposed atleast by ten
\nvoters which is not the case with respect  to  the  nomination  filed  by  him
\nbefore  the  Returning  Officer  and the mandatory requirements prescribed for
\nnomination of  the  independent  candidate  have  not  been  followed  by  the
\napplicant.\n<\/p>\n
36.   The  learned  Senior  Counsel  appearing  for  the  applicant\/  returned
\ncandidate contended that the election  petitioner  has  failed  to  state  the
\nmaterial  facts  as to why the applicant is not a candidate set up by the said
\npolitical party viz., Indian National Congress, even though Forms A and B have
\nbeen duly presented to the Returning Officer and this allegation  is  made  on
\ninformation,  but  the  source and details relating thereto have been withheld
\nand it is also not stated with material facts as to  how  the  result  of  the
\nelection was  materially  affected  by  the  allegation.    It  is his further
\ncontention that the averment regarding deeming the applicant as an independent
\ncandidate is imaginary hypothetical assumption and is not founded on  any  law
\nor facts and the election petitioner has failed to state the provisions as per
\nwhich  the  applicant  is deemed to have been an independent candidate and the
\nelection petitioner cannot plead\/raise a hypothecated situation and answer the
\nsame against the applicant.\n<\/p>\n
37.  It is true that the election petitioner in  the  above  subparagraph  has
\nchosen  to  state  that  the  applicant is no longer a candidate set up by the
\nIndian National Congress though Forms A and B have been duly presented to  the
\nReturning  Officer,  without  stating  the  material  facts based on which the
\nassumption is made and no issue of fact or law can be framed on the  basis  of
\nsuch  averments  and  any enquiry into the same would be wholly irrelevant and
\nimmaterial and this subparagraph deserves to be struck out as sought for.\n<\/p>\n
38.  In the 13th bullet, the election petitioner has averred that neither  the
\nTenth  Schedule  of  the  Constitution  of  India  nor  the  Election  Symbols
\n(Reservation and Allotment) Order could be taken for a ride by  any  political
\nparty  as  if  the  authorised  signatory can name anybody in Forms A and B to
\nallot the reserved symbol of  the  political  party  and  if  it  is  not  so,
\nwayfarers  in  the  political scenario could be benefited by such allotment of
\nsymbols, which is not the intention of the very recognition of  the  political
\nparty  or  reserved  symbol  and in order to preserve the democratic system, a
\ndeep analysis of these aspects is necessary  to  avoid  political  persons  to
\nover-ride  the  mandatory  provisions  in  respect  of  acquiring  symbols for
\ncontesting elections.\n<\/p>\n
        39.  The learned Senior Counsel for the  applicant\/returned  candidate
\ncontended that the averments regarding the intention and interpretation of the
\nTenth  Schedule  of  the  Constitution  of  India  and  the  Election  Symbols
\n(Reservation and Allotment) Order is a product of  the  election  petitioner’s
\nvagaries  of  mind based on presumptions and assumptions of facts and law that
\nought to be and hence not relevant to  the  election  petition  and  the  said
\naverments do not fall within the four corners of election law and liable to be
\nstruck off.  The averments in this sub-paragraph are only the arguments of the
\nelection petitioner and not relevant to the election petition and they have to
\nbe struck out as sought for.\n<\/p>\n
        40.   The  election  petitioner  in  Paragraph  12 (d) of the election
\npetition has stated that it is not known as to when the applicant has resigned
\nfrom the primary membership of Congress Jananayaga Peravai and  re-joined  and
\nenrolled  himself  as  member  of  the Indian National Congress and though the
\nelection petitioner has wanted those details, the same have not been furnished
\neither by the applicant or by the Returning Officer and  in  sub-para  (e)  of
\nParagraph  12,  the  election  petitioner  has stated that the 13th respondent
\nviz., Election Commission of  India,  would  have  the  records  to  show  the
\napplicant’s  position  and  status  in  the Congress Jananayaga Peravai and if
\nthere had been any change, it could have been duly intimated to the  agent  of
\nthe  election  petitioner  and  in sub-para (g) of Paragraph 12, it is averred
\nthat the applicant and the Indian National Congress have treated the  reserved
\nsymbol  like that of a chattel and it has been assigned to the applicant being
\nfully aware that he is a founder member of Congress Jananayaga Peravai.
\nIn sub-para (i) of Paragraph 12 of election petition, it is  stated  that  the
\nagent  of  the  election  petitioner  filed  his objections with the Returning
\nOfficer and sought  for  information  pertaining  to  the  membership  of  the
\napplicant  with the Indian National Congress and the Returning Officer did not
\ngive any satisfactory reply to the objections raised and this  only  leads  to
\nadverse inference as to his membership.\n<\/p>\n
In  sub-para  (j)  of Paragraph 12 of election petition, it is stated that the
\n13th respondent has failed in its duty to provide  the  requested  information
\nabout the applicant when contacted by the agent of the election petitioner and
\nit  has not complied with the provisions of law which provide for the right of
\nthe electorate to get information about the contesting candidates.
\nIt is averred in sub-para (k) of Paragraph 12 of election  petition  that  the
\n13th  respondent  has  acted  in  a  manner prejudicial to the interest of the
\nelection petitioner and not responded to the  request  of  the  agent  of  the
\nelection  petitioner  and  has accepted the nomination of the applicant by his
\nproceedings dated 24.4.2004.\n<\/p>\n
In sub-para (l) of paragraph 12, it is stated that the 13th respondent has not
\nacted in a transparent and accountable manner for the purpose of which it  has
\nbeen made as an autonomous body with vast powers for the effective functioning
\nof democracy.\n<\/p>\n
41.  The learned Senior Counsel for the applicant\/returned candidate contended
\nthat the averments regarding the 13th respondent not furnishing of details are
\nalien  factors  to  the  present  election petition and the same cannot form a
\nground to challenge the election of the applicant and the inaction on the part
\nof the 13th respondent even if it is true, cannot form the basis or ground  to
\nchallenge   the  election  of  the  applicant  under  the  provisions  of  the
\nRepresentation of People Act and hence the averments have to  be  struck  off.
\nThe  learned  Senior  Counsel  further  contended that the election petitioner
\nneither stated the material facts and particulars to prove that the  applicant
\nwas  a  member  of  Congress  Jananayaga  Peravai on the date of filing of his
\nnomination nor has he stated the material facts  which  would  show  that  the
\napplicant  was  not a member of Indian National Congress on the date of filing
\nof his nomination and no material facts have been pleaded to show conclusively
\nthat the applicant was not a  member  of  Indian  National  Congress  and  the
\naverments  having  been  made  on  information,  the  source  and  details  of
\ninformation have not been pleaded by way of material facts and  the  averments
\nare  only  vague  allegations and not supported by material facts and they are
\nliable to be struck off.\n<\/p>\n
        42.  The learned counsel for the election  petitioner  contended  that
\nwhether the applicant re-joined the Indian National Congress as alleged by him
\nand whether he had furnished any information about this to the 13th respondent
\nas  required  by law and whether he continued to be a founder leader\/president
\nof the Congress Jananayaga Peravai are all matters to be  considered  only  at
\nthe time of trial and not at the interlocutory stage.\n<\/p>\n
        43.   As  rightly  contended  by  the  learned  Senior Counsel for the
\napplicant, the alleged inaction on the part of the 13th respondent cannot form
\nthe basis or ground  to  challenge  the  election  of  the  applicant\/returned
\ncandidate  under  the  provisions  of  the Representation of People Act and no
\nmaterial facts have been pleaded to show that the applicant was not  a  member
\nof  Indian  National  Congress  on  the date of filing of nomination and these
\naverments are only vague allegations, not supported by material facts and have
\nto be struck off as sought for in the application.\n<\/p>\n
44.  The election petitioner in paragraph 12(h) of the election  petition  has
\naverred that the applicant has played a fraud on the Constitution of India and
\nhas  failed  to  maintain  the  high  traditions  of  democracy  and purity of
\nelections and he has resorted to fraudulent means by misrepresenting  that  he
\nis  a member of Indian National Congress and that he no longer continues to be
\na member of Congress Jananayaga Peravai.  In sub-para (m), it is averred  that
\nthe  improper acceptance of the applicant’s nomination has materially affected
\nthe election result and the polling trend  and  the  applicant  misrepresented
\nthat  he is a member of the Indian National Congress and played a fraud on the
\nlarge number of illiterate mass who exercised their franchise  by  identifying
\nthe  candidate  only with the help of his political symbol and hence they have
\nbeen duped into believing that he is a  congressman  and  the  result  of  the
\nelection  insofar  as  it  concerns the returned candidate has been materially
\naffected by improper acceptance of the nomination by the 12th respondent.\n<\/p>\n
45.   The  learned  Senior  Counsel  for  the   applicant\/returned   candidate
\nvehemently  contended  that  the election petitioner has made an irresponsible
\nallegation of fraud without giving particulars and the allegation is based  on
\npresumption  and  not  on the basis of any facts and the source of information
\nand the details of  document  or  persons  from  whom  these  information  are
\ngathered  have not been disclosed by way of material facts and particulars and
\nthese averments are per se scandalous and defamatory and ought  to  be  struck
\nout.\n<\/p>\n
        46.   The  learned  counsel for the election petitioner contended that
\nthe details as  to  how  the  election  process  is  vitiated  on  account  of
\nirregularities  and  illegalities  are  mentioned in the election petition and
\nthey have to be substantiated only at  the  time  of  trial  and  not  at  the
\ninterlocutory stage.\n<\/p>\n
        47.   It  is  true  that the allegation of fraud has been made without
\ngiving any particulars.  It is settled law that when a party pleads fraud,  he
\nshall state  the  particulars of it in the pleadings.  The election petitioner
\nhas made the allegation of fraud not on the basis of any fact and there can be
\nno enquiry into the averments contained in the  sub-paragraphs  and  they  are
\nliable to be struck out as prayed for.\n<\/p>\n
        48.   In  paragraph 12(n) of election petition, it is averred that the
\napplicant continues to be a member of  Congress  Jananayaga  Peravai  is  very
\nclear and evident from the various Press releases and advertisements given out
\nby  the  Congress  Jananayaga Peravai congratulating its party leader upon his
\nvictory in the election.\n<\/p>\n
        49.  It  has  been  contended  on  behalf  of  the  applicant\/returned
\ncandidate  that the above averments are made on the basis of Press reports and
\nthe same are not authentic facts which  could  be  independently  relied  upon
\nwithout other pleading of material facts or documentary evidence in support of
\nthe  election  petitioner’s  claim  to  establish  the cause of action for the
\nElection Petition and the material facts relating to the press reports such as
\nthe reason for non-filing of  the  original  manuscript,  the  name,  address,
\nidentity  of  the person who reported the news, the source of his information,
\nthe name of the editor and publisher of  the  newspaper,  the  region  of  the
\nedition  have  not  been pleaded and disclosed and no other material facts and
\nparticulars to corroborate the newspaper  report  have  been  pleaded  and  no
\nconnection  has been alleged or established between the applicant and the said
\nPress releases and advertisements and no enquiry can be made into the same and
\nthe averments ought to be struck off.\n<\/p>\n
        50.  It is well settled that the newspaper reports  are  only  hearsay
\nsecondary evidence,  unless proved by evidence aliunde.  Documents 8 to 15 are
\ncopies of the various newspaper reports.  As rightly contended by the  learned
\nSenior  Counsel  for  the  applicant,  no  material  facts  to corroborate the
\nnewspaper reports have been pleaded and  in  the  absence  of  the  same,  the
\naverments have to be struck out as prayed for.\n<\/p>\n
        51.  In Paragraph 12 (o), the election petitioner has stated that even
\nprior  to  the polling date, when the profile and other details of the various
\ncandidates were printed and circulated in the Press, the  applicant  was  only
\nportrayed  as a member of the Congress Jananayaga Peravai and they were having
\nan alliance with Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and Indian  National  Congress  and
\nhence  the  applicant  was  not entitled to contest under the political symbol
\nreserved for Indian National Congress.\n<\/p>\n
        52.  It is urged on behalf of the  applicant\/returned  candidate  that
\nthe above averment is not based on any facts or documents and do not raise any
\nissue of fact or law and hence ought to be struck off.\n<\/p>\n
        53.   As  already  seen, Forms A and B have been duly presented to the
\nReturning Officer by the Indian National Congress setting up the applicant  as
\ntheir  candidate  and  the same has been accepted by the Returning Officer and
\nthe election petitioner has not pleaded  any  material  fact  as  to  how  the<\/p>\n
applicant  was not entitled to contest under the political symbol reserved for
\nthe Indian National Congress.  This averment is also liable to be  struck  out
\nas sought for.\n<\/p>\n
        54.   The election petitioner in paragraph 14 of the election petition
\nhas averred that the  applicant  by  making  a  false  representation  in  his
\nnomination,  has  indulged  in  corrupt practice, which though not per se come
\nunder the purview of Section 123 of  the  Representation  of  People  Act,  by
\nconfusing the mind of electorate as being a Congressman.\n<\/p>\n
        55.   The  learned Senior Counsel for the applicant\/returned candidate
\nstrenuously contended that this averment is contrary to the election  law,  as
\nthere  is  a  deeming  provision  as  to  what could be deemed to be a corrupt
\npractice under Section 123  of  the  Representation  of  People  Act  and  the
\nelection  petitioner  is  not  entitled  to infuse any other criteria into the
\ndeeming clause for treating it to be  a  corrupt  practice.    It  is  further
\ncontended  by  the  learned Senior Counsel for the applicant that the election
\npetitioner himself has candidly admitted that the applicant is not  guilty  of
\ncorrupt  practice  as  prescribed  under  Section 123 of the Representation of
\nPeople Act and hence no cause of action for the election petition is made  out
\nand the averment has to be struck off.\n<\/p>\n
        56.   Section  2(1)(c) of the Representation of People Act states that
\n‘corrupt practice’ means any of the practices specified in Section 123 of  the
\nAct  and  the  corrupt practices are exhaustively stated in Section 123 of the
\nAct and other than that, there cannot be any other corrupt practice.    Hence,
\nthere  can be no enquiry into this bare allegation and the paragraph is liable
\nto be struck out as sought for.\n<\/p>\n
        57.  As discussed above, the applicant is entitled for the  relief  of
\nstriking  out  of  the  offending paragraphs as sought for in the application.
\nThe averments contained in the remaining paragraphs have to be analysed.\n<\/p>\n
        58.  Paragraphs 1 and  2  of  the  election  petition  deal  with  the
\ndescription of  parties.   The averments in paragraphs 3 and 4 are not germane
\nto the issue.\n<\/p>\n
        59.  In paragraph 5, it is averred that the returned candidate  was  a
\nmember  of  Indian National Congress and in the year 1996 he was expelled from
\nthat party as he  joined  a  new  political  out-fit,  namely,  Tamil  Maanila
\nCongress  (Moopanar)  which  was a recognized State political party and as its
\ncandidate contested in the Sivaganga Parliamentary Constituency thrice, in the
\nyears 1996, 1998 and 1999 and in the year 2001 he was expelled from that party
\nand he founded Congress Jananayaga  Peravai  and  registered  the  same  as  a
\npolitical party  with the Election Commission of India.  There are no material
\nfacts pleaded and the averments are irrelevant.\n<\/p>\n
        60.  In para 6, the election petitioner has averred that the  returned
\ncandidate  filed  his nomination on 19.4.2004 declaring himself as a candidate
\nof Indian National Congress and as he was  a  member  of  Congress  Jananayaga
\nPeravai  on  that date, his declaration is false and the Agent of the election
\npetitioner contacted the 13th respondent, namely, the Election  Commission  of
\nIndia,  over  phone  on  20.4.2004  to  ascertain the official position of the
\nreturned candidate in Congress Jananayaga Peravai and as  instructed  he  also
\nsent  a  written representation on 21.4.2004 to the 13th respondent requesting
\nit to furnish the details regarding the  official  position  of  the  returned
\ncandidate  in  Congress  Jananayaga  Peravai  as on 20.4.2004 and there was no
\nresponse.  As already  seen,  the  election  petitioner  has  not  stated  the
\nmaterial  facts  to prove that the returned candidate was a member of Congress
\nJananayaga Peravai on the date of filing of his  nomination  and  no  material
\nfacts  have been pleaded to show that the applicant was not a member of Indian
\nNational Congress as on that date, and  the  averments  having  been  made  on
\ninformation,  the  source  and details of information have not been pleaded by
\nway of material facts  and  the  averments  are  only  vague  allegations  not
\nsupported by  material  facts.    The  learned Senior Counsel for the returned
\ncandidate contended that the election petitioner has not stated material facts
\nto prove the appointment of the election  petitioner’s  Agent,  the  name  and
\naddress   of   the   election  Agent  who  was  said  to  have  given  written
\nrepresentation  and  also  not  pleaded   ‘material   facts’   and   ‘material
\nparticulars’  to  show  sending  of  written  representation  such  as mode of
\ndespatch, delivery, acknowledgement from the Office of the Election Commission
\nto prove the claim of sending written representation  and  the  averments  are
\nfrivolous and  vexatious.   As already seen, the averments regarding the 13 th
\nrespondent not furnishing details to the election petitioner are alien factors
\nto the election petition and the same cannot form a ground  to  challenge  the
\nelection.\n<\/p>\n
        61.   In para 7, the election petitioner has averred that as per law a
\nperson could not be a member of more than one political party at a given point
\nof time and while registering a political  party,  particulars  regarding  the
\nnames  of  its President, Secretary, Treasurer and other Office Bearers should
\nbe furnished under an affidavit duly signed by the President\/General Secretary
\nof the party sworn in before a First Class Magistrate\/Oath Commissioner\/Notary
\nPublic to the effect that no member of the Organisation is  a  member  of  any
\nother  political  party  registered with the Commission and similar individual
\naffidavits from at least 100 members of the party should also be furnished and
\nafter registration as a political party as per sub-Section of Sec.29(A) of the
\nRepresentation of the People Act, 1951, any change in its name,  head  office,
\noffice  bearers,  address  shall  be  communicated  to the Election Commission
\nwithout delay.    The  learned  Senior  Counsel  for  the  returned  candidate
\ncontended that though the election petitioner has stated on advice that as per
\nlaw  a  person cannot be a member of more than one political party, he has not
\npleaded the material facts as to the name, identity and address of the  person
\nwho  gave  the  advice  and  he  has  not  set  out the provision of law which
\nprohibits a person from being a member of more than one political party  at  a
\ngiven  point of time and which constitutes a ground for declaring the election
\ninvalid.  It is true that no material facts  have  been  pleaded  stating  the
\nrelevant  provision  of  law  and the violation, if any, and the averments are
\nirrelevant, frivolous and vexatious.\n<\/p>\n
        62.  In para 9, it is averred that during the scrutiny of  nominations
\non  24.4.2004,  the  agent  and  proposers  of  the election petitioner raised
\nserious objections before the Returning Officer, namely, the 12 th respondent,
\nseeking to reject the nomination of  the  returned  candidate  by  filing  the
\nwritten  objection  and  the  same  came  to  be rejected by Order of the 12th
\nrespondent dated 24.4.2004 and the Agent of the  election  petitioner  sent  a
\npetition  dated  25.4.2004 to the 13th respondent requesting it not to publish
\nthe final list and stop the election.  Document No.4 is the written  objection
\ndated 24 .4.2004 given by one Haja Najmuddin, claiming himself to be the Chief
\nElection  Agent of the election petitioner, to the Returning Officer; Document
\nNo.5 is the Proceedings of the Returning Officer, dated 24  .4.2004  rejecting
\nthe  objections;  Document  No.6  is the petition dated 25.4.2004 sent by Haja
\nNajmuddin addressed to the  13th  respondent;  and  Document  No.7  is  a  Fax
\nTransmission Report dated 26.4.2004.  The learned Senior Counsel appearing for
\nthe  returned  candidate  contended that the election petitioner has failed to
\nfurnish the material facts and material particulars about the  name,  identity
\nand  address of his alleged Agent and his authority of appointment pleaded and
\ndocument produced, and the name, identity and address of  his  proposers  also
\nhave  not  been  pleaded  with material facts, who are said to have raised the
\nobjection, and  the  election  petitioner  has  failed  to  state  under  what
\nprovision  of  law the election petitioner is entitled to request and the 13th
\nrespondent is empowered to stop the election and not to publish the final list
\nof  candidates  and  hence,  the  averments  are  irrelevant,  frivolous   and
\nvexatious.   This contention raised on behalf of the returned candidate cannot
\nbe brushed aside.  No material facts and provisions of law have  been  pleaded
\nin these averments.\n<\/p>\n
        63.   In  para 10, it is averred that the 12th respondent, namely, the
\nReturning Officer, in his Proceedings  has  rejected  the  objections  without
\ngoing  into the root of the question and improperly accepted the nomination of
\nthe first respondent as a valid one and it is  wrong,  improper,  illegal  and
\nagainst  the spirit of the Constitution, the Representation of the People Act,
\nand the Election Symbols ( Reservation & Allotment) Order, 1968,  the  conduct
\nof  Election  Rules,  1961 together with the periodical instructions issued by
\nthe 13th respondent.  The learned Senior Counsel for  the  returned  candidate
\ncontended  that  no material facts have been pleaded to show as to how and why
\nthe acceptance of nomination of the returned candidate was  improper  and  the
\nrelevant  provision  of  law  required  to  be  satisfied  for  acceptance  of
\nnomination, and which has not been satisfied.  He further contended  that  the
\nelection  petitioner  has  not  mentioned  the  provision of the Constitution,
\nSection of the Representation of the People Act, and the Rule  made  under  it
\nand the particular Order made under that Act sought to be relied upon to prove
\nthe  allegation  in the election petition and there are no averments much less
\nmaterial facts to the effect that the allegation has materially  affected  the
\nresult of  the  election of the returned candidate.  The fact remains that the
\nelection petitioner has not chosen to mention the specific  provision  of  law
\nand the  material  facts regarding its violation.  The averments are vague and
\nvexatious.\n<\/p>\n
        64.  In para 13, it is averred that  the  averments  in  the  election
\npetition  would manifestly prove and establish that by the improper acceptance
\nof the nomination of the returned candidate by the 12th respondent, the result
\nof the election in so far as it  concerns  the  returned  candidate  had  been
\nmaterially  affected  and there had been flagrant violations of the provisions
\nof the Constitution, the Representation of the People Act and the rules framed
\nthereunder, the Election Symbols  (Reservation  &  Allotment)  Order  and  the
\nConduct  of  the  Election  Rules  and  in view of the above illegalities, the
\nelection has to be  declared  as  ‘void’.    As  already  seen,  the  election
\npetitioner has failed to plead material facts and furnish material particulars
\nto establish that the election in so far as it concerns the returned candidate
\nwas  materially  affected on account of the alleged improper acceptance of his
\nnomination and further the election petitioner has not pleaded material  facts
\nas  to  how  he  could  have obtained a majority of valid votes to support his
\nclaim to declare himself as elected.  The averments in this paragraph also are
\nvague and frivolous besides bereft of material facts.\n<\/p>\n
65.  The election petitioner has mentioned various dates on which the cause of
\naction arose in para 15, and para 16 states the payment of costs and court fee
\nand para 17 is the prayer portion.\n<\/p>\n
        66.  To sum  up,  the  election  petitioner  has  not  pleaded  either
\nmaterial  facts  or  violation  of any specific provision of law to make out a
\ncause of action and a triable issue for the ground of improper  acceptance  of
\nthe  nomination  of  the  returned candidate and further, no material facts to
\nprove violation of any specific provision of the Constitution of India or  the
\nRepresentation  of  People  Act  or  Rules  or  Orders made under it have been
\npleaded in support of the election petition and moreover, no material fact  is
\npleaded  in  the  election  petition to make out a cause of action and triable
\nissue that the result of the election in so far as it  concerns  the  returned
\ncandidate was materially affected.\n<\/p>\n
67.   The  election  petitioner has not pleaded material facts or any specific
\nprovision of law in the election petition to show that the returned  candidate
\nwas  a  member  of  Congress Jananayaga Peravai and was not a member of Indian
\nNational Congress on the date of filing of his nomination and no allegation of
\ncorrupt practice as set out in Section 123 of the Representation of People Act
\nhas been pleaded.  The election petition, read as a whole, does  not  disclose
\nany cause of action or triable issue and the same has to be rejected as sought
\nfor in the application.\n<\/p>\n
        68.  In the result, the Original Application No.105 of 2005 is allowed
\nas prayed for.  Consequently, the Election Petition No.3 of 2004 is dismissed.
\nThe parties have to bear the respective costs in the Original  Application  as
\nwell as in the Election Petition.\n<\/p>\n
Index :  Yes
\nInternet:  Yes<\/p>\n
vks\/pb.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court P.Chidambaram vs Suba. Karuppiah .. 1St on 14 June, 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 14\/06\/2005 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.NAGAPPAN Original Application No.105 of 2005 in Election Petition No.3 of 2004 P.Chidambaram .. Applicant\/ 1st respondent -Vs- 1. Suba. Karuppiah .. 1st respondent\/ Election Petitioner 2.Navshad Alikhan […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-177886","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nP.Chidambaram vs Suba. Karuppiah .. 1St on 14 June, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-chidambaram-vs-suba-karuppiah-1st-on-14-june-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P.Chidambaram vs Suba. Karuppiah .. 1St on 14 June, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-chidambaram-vs-suba-karuppiah-1st-on-14-june-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2005-06-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-23T10:04:48+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"89 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-chidambaram-vs-suba-karuppiah-1st-on-14-june-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-chidambaram-vs-suba-karuppiah-1st-on-14-june-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P.Chidambaram vs Suba. Karuppiah .. 1St on 14 June, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-06-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-23T10:04:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-chidambaram-vs-suba-karuppiah-1st-on-14-june-2005\"},\"wordCount\":17675,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-chidambaram-vs-suba-karuppiah-1st-on-14-june-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-chidambaram-vs-suba-karuppiah-1st-on-14-june-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-chidambaram-vs-suba-karuppiah-1st-on-14-june-2005\",\"name\":\"P.Chidambaram vs Suba. Karuppiah .. 1St on 14 June, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-06-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-23T10:04:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-chidambaram-vs-suba-karuppiah-1st-on-14-june-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-chidambaram-vs-suba-karuppiah-1st-on-14-june-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-chidambaram-vs-suba-karuppiah-1st-on-14-june-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P.Chidambaram vs Suba. Karuppiah .. 1St on 14 June, 2005\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"P.Chidambaram vs Suba. Karuppiah .. 1St on 14 June, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-chidambaram-vs-suba-karuppiah-1st-on-14-june-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P.Chidambaram vs Suba. Karuppiah .. 1St on 14 June, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-chidambaram-vs-suba-karuppiah-1st-on-14-june-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-06-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-23T10:04:48+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"89 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-chidambaram-vs-suba-karuppiah-1st-on-14-june-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-chidambaram-vs-suba-karuppiah-1st-on-14-june-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P.Chidambaram vs Suba. Karuppiah .. 1St on 14 June, 2005","datePublished":"2005-06-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-23T10:04:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-chidambaram-vs-suba-karuppiah-1st-on-14-june-2005"},"wordCount":17675,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-chidambaram-vs-suba-karuppiah-1st-on-14-june-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-chidambaram-vs-suba-karuppiah-1st-on-14-june-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-chidambaram-vs-suba-karuppiah-1st-on-14-june-2005","name":"P.Chidambaram vs Suba. Karuppiah .. 1St on 14 June, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-06-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-23T10:04:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-chidambaram-vs-suba-karuppiah-1st-on-14-june-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-chidambaram-vs-suba-karuppiah-1st-on-14-june-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-chidambaram-vs-suba-karuppiah-1st-on-14-june-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P.Chidambaram vs Suba. Karuppiah .. 1St on 14 June, 2005"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/177886","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=177886"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/177886\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=177886"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=177886"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=177886"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}