RAMA RAI Vs. M. RAMANNA RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner contested the general election to the House of the People (Lok Sabha) held on 22-11-1989 from No. 1 Kasaragod Parliamentary Constituency as a candidate of the Indian National Congress (1) party. There were 12 candidates and the first respondent Contested the election as a candidate of the Left Democratic Front consisting of Communist Party of India (Marxist) and other allied groups. Poll to Kasaragod Parliamentary Constituency took place on 22-11-1989, the counting of votes started on 26-11-1989 and the result was declared on 27-11-1989. The first respondent secured 3, 58, 723, votes as against his nearest rival the petitioner, who secured, 3, 57, 177 votes. Thus, the first respondent won the election by a margin of 1546 votes. The petitioner now challenges the validity of the election mainly on the ground of corrupt practices.

(2.) The petitioner has alleged several grounds to set aside the election. The first respondent filed a preliminary objection and he seeks to strike down the pleadings of the petitioner regarding corrupt practices. The first respondent would contend that the election petition does not contain any 'specific charges of corrupt practice and the allegations contained therein are vague and of general nature, and therefore it is submitted that the election petition is liable to be rejected under S.100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

(3.) It is now well settled by various decisions of the Supreme Court that the pleadings of the election petitioner should be absolutely precise and clear containing all necessary details and particulars as required by law. The allegations in the petition should not be vague, general in nature or lack in materials or be frivolous or vexatious and the court is empowered at any stage of the proceedings to strike down or delete pleadings which are suffering from such vices as not raising any triable issue. An electron petition where corrupt practices are imputed must be regarded as proceedings of a quasi criminal nature where strict proof is necessary. S.83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short the Act) specifically states that an election petition shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies and that the petitioner shall set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice that the petitioner alleges, including as full a statement as possible of the names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practice and the date and place of the commission of each such practice. In Udhay Singh v. Madhav Rao Scindia (1976 (2) S. C. R.246) the Supreme Court explained as to what are the material facts. It was held: