Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court rejected the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 seeking to dismiss an election petition at the threshold. The petition challenged the election of the applicant to the Maharashtra Legislative Council from the Mumbai Teachers Constituency. Justice Gauri Godse held that:
“The averments, if proved, will materially affect the election result. Thus, the material particulars pleaded in the petition would constitute a sufficient cause of action that warrants a trial.”
The Court emphasized that objections raised on illegal addition of ineligible voters may be tried in an election petition, and cannot be dismissed outright merely because they pertain to the electoral roll.
Facts
The petitioner had filed an election petition under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, challenging the election of the respondent to the Maharashtra Legislative Council from the Mumbai Teachers Constituency held on 26th June 2024. The petitioner claimed the respondent had won due to the inclusion of 587 ineligible voters allegedly enrolled under undue influence.
The election had 15,839 registered voters, of which 11,598 votes were considered valid. The petitioner lost narrowly by 68 votes in the first round of counting and by 208 votes in the penultimate round. The petitioner claimed that he would have been declared elected had the 587 ineligible votes not been cast.
Issues
- Whether an election petition can be dismissed at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that it challenges the electoral roll.
- Whether the alleged inclusion of ineligible voters constitutes a valid cause of action for the purpose of challenging an election under Section 100 of the 1951 Act.
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The petition contains specific allegations that 587 ineligible persons were illegally registered and voted.
- The allegations justify a trial under Section 100(1)(d)(iii) and (iv) of the 1951 Act as the election result was materially affected.
- The petitioner relied on the Election Commission’s guidelines (dated 5th September 2016) and government circulars to argue that only secondary school teachers are eligible voters.
- He claimed that pre-primary, primary teachers and non-teaching staff were wrongly included.
- Since no remedy under Section 24 of the 1950 Act exists for Legislative Council elections, such objections must be allowed through an election petition.
Respondent’s Arguments
- The petition merely challenges the electoral roll, which cannot be the subject of an election petition.
- The deadline to raise objections to the draft electoral roll expired on 6th November 2023, well before the final electoral roll was published and nominations closed.
- The Election Commission’s process, including certification by Headmasters/Principals, ensures the roll’s validity.
- The allegations are vague, and no specific undue influence or procedural violation under Section 23(3) of the 1950 Act is pleaded.
- Relied on precedents to argue that preparation of the electoral roll is not part of the election process and thus cannot be challenged in an election petition.
Analysis of the Law
The Court analyzed the distinction between preparation of electoral rolls and the election process. Relying on Indrajit Barua v. Election Commission of India and N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, the Court noted that while electoral rolls generally attain finality, a challenge can still be entertained if:
“the irregularities have the effect of vitiating the election.”
It clarified that while electoral roll preparation is usually excluded from the election process, in certain cases—especially where no alternative remedy like Section 24 appeal exists—the High Court can entertain an election petition raising such objections.
Precedent Analysis
The Court considered several Supreme Court rulings:
- Indrajit Barua: Preparation of electoral roll not part of election, but exception exists for irregularities violating law.
- N.P. Ponnuswami: Emphasized postponement of challenges until after elections conclude.
- Hari Prasad Trivedi: Electoral roll entries can be examined if a person is disqualified or wrongly added.
- B.M. Ramaswamy: Held that legality of inclusion in roll may be challenged where jurisdictional error exists.
These cases, the Court noted, support the view that such challenges can be examined in exceptional cases where election results are materially affected.
Court’s Reasoning
- There is no absolute legal bar against raising electoral roll issues in an election petition, especially when irregularities could vitiate the result.
- The petition alleges specific misconduct by the respondent who allegedly used influence through institutional connections.
- Since no appeal under Section 24 of the 1950 Act lies for such elections, an election petition remains the only remedy.
- The petition pleaded facts regarding 587 allegedly ineligible electors, including their age, teaching qualifications, and affiliations.
The Court observed:
“The word ‘election’ has been used with reference to the entire process, which consists of several stages having an important bearing on the election result.”
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, holding that the election petition discloses a valid cause of action and warrants a full trial. The matter cannot be dismissed merely on the ground that it challenges the electoral roll.
Implications
This ruling affirms that election petitions cannot be dismissed summarily when they allege irregularities in voter registration that could impact the election result. The judgment strengthens the view that procedural fairness and substantive scrutiny must coexist in electoral disputes, especially when statutory remedies are unavailable.
Pingback: Delhi High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Suit Based on Oral Tenancy: “Creation of Oral Tenancy is Not Barred by Any Law,” Court Recognizes Plea as Legally Permissible Despite High Burden of Proof - Raw Law