“Supreme Court Upholds Manipur High Court Ruling, Dismisses MLA’s Appeal in Election Petition Challenging Concealment of Assets and Corrupt Practices”

Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by Kimneo Haokip Hangshing, an elected Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) from the 46-Saikul Assembly Constituency in Manipur. The appellant had challenged the High Court of Manipur’s decision to reject her application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) seeking dismissal of an election petition filed against her by respondent Kenn Raikhan. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s ruling, finding that the election petition disclosed a valid cause of action and met the requirements of substantial compliance with Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA).

Facts of the Case:
Kimneo Haokip Hangshing was elected as an MLA in the 2022 General Elections to the Manipur Legislative Assembly. The respondent, Kenn Raikhan, who also contested the election, filed an election petition alleging that the appellant had concealed assets in her nomination papers and engaged in corrupt practices during the election. The appellant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, arguing that the election petition did not disclose any cause of action and failed to meet the requirements of Section 83 of the RPA.

Issues:
The main issue was whether the election petition should be dismissed at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for failure to disclose a cause of action, or if the allegations made required a trial for further examination.

Appellant’s Arguments:
The appellant argued that the election petition did not specify the corrupt practices or material facts necessary for a valid petition, as required under Section 83 of the RPA. She claimed that the petition was defective and should have been dismissed at the outset.

Respondent’s Arguments:
The respondent contended that the appellant had concealed her investments and income in the nomination papers and that the petition met the legal standards for challenging the election. He argued that these allegations needed to be examined in a full trial.

Court’s Reasoning:
The Supreme Court held that the election petition filed by the respondent disclosed a cause of action, particularly regarding allegations of non-disclosure of assets and income. The Court emphasized that substantial compliance with Section 83 of the RPA was sufficient and that the petition should not be dismissed at the threshold. The Court noted that whether the appellant had concealed assets or misrepresented her income was a triable issue that required further examination during trial.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court of Manipur’s decision, dismissing the appellant’s application for rejection of the election petition under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The appeal was dismissed, and all interim orders were vacated.