Section 86 of Representation of People Act, vests power in the High Court to dismiss an election petition which has not been properly presented as required by Section 81; or where there has been non- compliance of Section 82 i.e. non-joinder of the necessary parties to the election petition; or for non-deposit of the required amount as security for the costs of the election petition.

Section 86 does not contemplate dismissal of the election petition for non-compliance of the requirement of Section 83 of the Act. But Section 83 enjoins that an election petition shall contain concise statement of material facts, and shall set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice that the petitioner alleges, which should be verified and supported by affidavit, so far the allegations of corrupt practices are concerned.

Object Behind the Provision

This provision is not only procedural, but has an object behind it; so that a person declared to have been elected, is not dragged to court to defend and support the validity of his election, on allegations of corrupt practice which are not precise and details whereof have not been supported by a proper affidavit. Apart from that, unless the material facts and full particulars of the corrupt practices are set forth properly in the election petition, the person whose election is challenged, is bound to be prejudiced in defending himself of the charges, which have been levelled against him.

In view of the repeated pronouncements of this Court, that the charge of corrupt practice is quasi-criminal in nature, the person challenging an election on the ground of corrupt practice, cannot take liberty of making any vague or reckless allegation, without taking the responsibility about the correctness thereof. Before the court proceeds to investigate such allegations, the court must be satisfied, that the material facts have been stated along with the full particulars of the corrupt practice, alleged by the petitioner, which have been duly supported by an affidavit.

In cases where the court finds that neither material facts have been stated, nor full particulars of the corrupt practice, as required by Section 83, have been furnished in the election petition, the election petition can be dismissed, not under Section 86 but under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, which are applicable, read with Section 83(1) of the Act, saying that it does not disclose a cause of action. This aspect has been examined by this Court in detail in the cases of Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi‘; Hardwari Lal v. Kanwal Singh’.

The scope of Section 83(1) has been recently examined in the case of F.A. Sapa v. Singoral where it was pointed out that the underlying idea in requiring the election petition to set out in a concise manner all the ‘material facts’ as well as the ‘full particulars’, where the complaint is in respect of commission of corrupt practice, is to “delineate the scope, ambit and limits of the inquiry at the trial by the election petition”

In Subhash Desai v. Sharad J Rao (1994), the court said,

“It need not be pointed out that even if the court is satisfied that, in respect of one of the corrupt practices alleged, material facts and full particulars thereof have not been stated, still the election petition cannot be dismissed, if in respect of another corrupt practice the material facts and full particulars have been stated in accordance with the requirement of Section 83(1) of the Act. 13.

In respect of the contention that the affidavit, supporting the corrupt practices alleged to have been committed by the appellant, is not as required by Section 83(1)(c) proviso, it was pointed out that reference has been made in the affidavit to paragraph 746, which contains the grounds for declaring the election of the appellant to be void and has no relation to the paragraphs giving particulars of corrupt practices.

It is true that instead of saying that the statements, made in paragraph 746 of the election petition about the commission of corrupt practices, were true to the knowledge of the appellant, it should have been stated that the statements, made in paragraphs 49, 50, 50-A, 51 and 52 of the said petition were true to his knowledge. But, from bare reference to the other part of the affidavit, it shall appear that it has also been said that making of religious appeal to people and the particulars of the corrupt practices mentioned in paragraphs 49, 50, 50-A, 51 and 52 of the said election petition and the exhibits referred thereto, were true to the knowledge of the appellant.

According to us, it cannot be held, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, that there was no affidavit supporting the allegations of corrupt practices, as required by Section 83(1)(c) proviso.”

Reference

Subhash Desai v. Sharad J Rao (1994)