Court Emphasizes Need for Concise Statement of Material Facts Under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of Representation of the People Act; Rejects Petition Challenging Returned Candidate's Affidavit on Technical Grounds
In a significant judgment delivered on September 15, 2026, the Madras High Court, presided over by Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, dismissed an election petition filed by V.B. Prabhu challenging the election of K.A. Sengottaiyan, the returned candidate from Gobichettipalayam Assembly Constituency. The petitioner had alleged that the affidavit in Form No.26 filed by Sengottaiyan along with his nomination papers was invalid due to attestation by a Notary Public whose certificate of practice was not subsisting at the time of attestation.
The Court examined the petition under various provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RP Act), including Sections 80, 80A, 81, 82, 83, 84, 98(b)(c), and 100(1)(d)(iv), and considered the mandatory requirements for pleading material facts in election petitions. The petitioner's primary contention was that the Notary Public who attested the affidavit had an expired certificate, rendering the affidavit-and consequently the nomination-invalid.
However, the Court noted that this very objection had already been raised and rejected by the Returning Officer during the scrutiny of the nomination papers. The Returning Officer had found that the Notary's certificate was valid and renewed, thus authorizing the attestation. The petitioner failed to challenge the Returning Officer's order in a legally recognized manner, and instead raised the same issue again in the election petition.
Critically, the Court observed that the election petition lacked a concise statement of material facts demonstrating how the alleged defect in the notary's attestation materially affected the election result, as mandated by Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the RP Act. The Court emphasized that mere bald allegations without specific factual foundation are insufficient to constitute a cause of action. The petitioner did not demonstrate that the defect amounted to a corrupt practice or that it materially influenced the election outcome.
The Court relied heavily on the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Kanimozhi Karunanidhi v. A. Santhana Kumar (2024), which underscored that election petitions must contain all material facts necessary to establish a cause of action and that omission of any such fact renders the petition liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The judgment reiterated that election petitions are serious matters and should not be used for vexatious or frivolous litigation.
In conclusion, the Madras High Court allowed the application filed by Sengottaiyan to reject the election petition at the threshold for failure to disclose a legally sustainable cause of action. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
This judgment reinforces the strict requirements for filing election petitions and the importance of demonstrating how alleged procedural defects materially affect election results, thereby safeguarding the election process from frivolous challenges.
Bottom Line:
Election petition seeking rejection of a returned candidate's election must contain a concise statement of material facts, establishing a complete cause of action under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Statutory provision(s):
Representation of the People Act, 1951 Sections 80, 80A, 81, 82, 83, 84, 98(b), 98(c), 100, 100(1)(d)(iv), Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 Rule 94-A, Madras High Court (Election Petitions) Rules, 1967, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Order VII Rule 11(a)
K.A. Sengottaiyan v. V.B. Prabhu, (Madras) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2979944
