B.Manickam Tagore v. V.Vijaya Prabhakaran

Order VI Rule 16."

8.f. Similarly, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Virendar Nath Gautam vs. Satpal Singh reported in (2007) 3 SCC 617 for the proposition that the Court cannot consider the correctness of allegations and evidence in support of averments by entering into the merits of the case which would be permissible only at the stage of trial of the election petition and not at the stage of consideration whether the election petition was maintainable. Further, it was also held that it was, however, not necessary to "set forth full particulars", which is the requirement of Section 83(1)(b) of "any corrupt practice".

8.g. He also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohan Rawale vs. Damodar Tatyaba reported in (1994) 2 SCC 392 for the proposition that as long as the claim in election petition discloses some cause of action or raises some questions fit to be decided by a judge, the mere fact that the case is weak and not likely to succeed is not a ground for striking it out. In all, the learned counsel for the Election Petitioner seeks for dismissal of these applications.

¶9Heard the rival submissions made on both sides and perused the materials placed before this Court along with the election petition.

¶10As already stated, though the applicant/Returned Candidate has taken a stand before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that instead of pressing all the original grounds in the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, he will submit an additional affidavit restricting the grounds, which the applicant proposed to plead before this Court, however, now, once again, all the grounds raised earlier are sought to be canvassed. Though an additional affidavit has been filed, the applicant has not chosen to restrict any grounds raised under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, despite the undertaking taken before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In fact, all the grounds raised earlier are once again sought to be canvassed. The election of the returned candidate is sought to be cancelled by the Election Petitioner by filing the Election Petition No.4 of 2024 on the grounds of improper acceptance of the nomination of the respondent/applicant herein and also for suppressing the material facts in the nomination papers regarding the entire assets and criminal antecedents; bribing of voters-congress party guarantee card and cash distribution; votes were not counted due to erase of mock poll votes; booth capturing; stoppage of vote counting; incurred expenditure more than the amount prescribed by the ECI and malpractices during counting of postal ballots.

¶11No doubt, Order VI Rule 16 and Order VII Rule 11 CPC would be applicable to proceedings under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Further, this Court has power to strike out the pleadings even before filing of the written statement by the respondent, when it finds that the pleadings does not disclose a cause of action and the Court has powers to reject the petition under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶12In this case, on a perusal of the election petition No.4 of 2024, the same does not attract any of the conditions mentioned in Order VI Rule 16 and Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure and therefore it need not be struck out, the election petitioner discloses cause of action, the cause of action means bundle of facts, it can be gathered from the election petition in whole and it cannot be isolated from any of the particulars from particular paragraph and particular portion. The entire allegations in the election petitioner have to be taken into consideration to find out whether those allegations constitute a cause of action. The "material facts" and "full particulars" is well recognised in law. 'Material facts' constitute the foundational facts necessary to establish a cause of action, whereas, 'particulars' are details supporting such facts. It is well settled that an election petition cannot be rejected if it even discloses a triable issue. The strength or weakness of the case is wholly immaterial at this stage. So long as the pleadings raise issues requiring adjudication, the matter must proceed to trial. In this regard, it is relevant to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madiraju Venkata Ramana Raju vs. Peddireddigari Ramachandra Reddy and others reported in (2018) 14 SCC 1 has held that the Court has to consider the plaint as a whole to consider whether it reveals a cause of action for trial, court cannot dissect an election petition sentence wise or para-wise to rule that it does not disclose cause of action and the Court cannot merely focus on some pleading and leave out rest. It further held that if both the applications are filed at the same time, and Court decides to hear Order VII Rule 11 of CPC application in first instance, it should consider plaint as a whole, that does not mean that if it decides to take up Order VI Rule 16 first and strikes off some pleadings, it would not have to decide remainder of the pleadings for the purpose of Order VII Rule 11 to decide whether the plaint (after striking out pleadings) deserved to be rejected in limine.

¶13In Mohan Rawale vs. Damodar Tatyaba reported in (1994) 2 SCC 392, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that as long as the claim in election petition discloses some cause of action or raises some questions fit to be decided by a judge, the mere fact that the case is weak and not likely to succeed is not a ground for striking it out.

¶14In Roop Lal Sathi vs. Nachhattar Singh Gill reported in (1982) 3 SCC 487, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a preliminary objection that the election petition is not in conformity with Section 83(1) (a) of the Act, i.e., it does not contain the concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies, is but a plea in the nature of demurrer and in deciding the question, the Court has to assume for this purpose that the averments contained in the election petition are true. The election petitioner is not supposed to anticipate the defence and to state what he would have to say in answer to it and therefore, such statements need not find place in the petition. Further, it was held that where the plaint disclose no causes of action, it is obligatory upon the Court to reject the plaint as a whole under Order VII Rule 11 (a) of CPC, but the rule does not justify the rejection of any particular portion of a plaint. Therefore, the High Court could not act under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC for striking down paragraphs 4 to 18 of the election petition(therein) nor the High Court could act under Order VI Rule 16 in the absence of anything to show that the averments in paragraphs 4 to 18 of the election petition (therein) are either unnecessary, frivolous or vexatious, or that they are such as may tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the election of constitute an abuse of process of the Court.

¶15The learned senior counsel for the applicant relied upon a judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in Election Petition No.14/2023 in the case of Smt.B.Lakshmi devi vs. Shri. Rizwan Arshad, wherein, it was held that the guarantees made as per the manifesto of a political party cannot be construed as "corrupt practice" under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Admittedly, the Election Commission has issued Model Code of Conduct Circular dated 02.05.2024 which prohibits the distribution of guarantee cards in the form of pamphlets giving details of prospective individual benefit of voters. Though it is the contention of the learned senior counsel that the circular dated was 02.05.2024, whereas, the election was completed on

19.04.2024 and the circular dated 02.05.2024 cannot be applied retrospectively and will apply prospectively, the Election Commission has taken a conscious decision that the scheme of manifesto also amounts to promise and prohibited the same, now, it cannot be said that merely because prohibition takes place at a later date, the same will not amount to corrupt practice. Thus, the issue with regard to whether issuance of guarantee card amounts to corrupt practice when there is a prohibition by the Election Commission cannot be gone into at this stage.

¶16Now, this Court would like to delve into para-wise allegations raised by the Election Petitioner and find out whether there is cause of action, material facts and full particulars which the Returned Candidate pleads absent in the Election Petition.

¶17With regard to allegations raised in paragraphs 7 to 12 in the Election Petition with regard to the improper acceptance of nomination paper is concerned, though the Election Petitioner has not given any specific particulars with regard to assets and criminal cases pending as against the Returned Candidate, it is relevant to note that whether he had disclosed his entire assets in his name and his family members as well as the entire criminal antecedents could be established only at the time of trial. The assets and criminal cases are well within his special knowledge and only, when the Returned Candidate is confronted to trial, those details could be unearthed. Therefore, even assuming that no specific details is given with regard to improper acceptance of nomination paper, I am of the view that the same itself is not a ground to reject the entire election petition. It is also well settled that a suit or Election Petition cannot be rejected in part.

¶18As far as the allegations raised in paragraphs 13 to 16 in the Election Petition with regard to the bribing of voters by issuing Congress Party Guarantee Card is concerned, though it is contended by the Returned Candidate that the issue of Guarantee Card does not amount to corrupt practice, the scheme is a manifesto of the Party, paragraphs 13 to 16 when carefully seen, the petitioner has given particulars about the persons who have distributed and who have received such cards with the consent of the Returned Candidate. In this regard, FIRs were also registered in FIR.Nos.77 of 2024 (Virudhunagar West Police Station), 48 of 2024(Alankulam Police Station) and 138 of 2024 (Sivakasi Town Police Station). Thus, apart from filing the Doc.Nos.1,8,11&12, the Election Petitioner has provided sufficient pleadings by giving names of the persons who have distributed and who have received such cards with the consent of the Returned Candidate. The Election Petitioner in paragraph 17 to 19 has stated that though it appears to be a Guarantee Card of the political party, specific particulars of the voters like their address, mobile number, booth number have been obtained and such particulars are also pleaded in the Election Petition. Therefore, this Court is of the view that prima facie, there are materials to show that there was promise made to the individual voters and at this stage, whether it is merely a guarantee card issued by the Party or inducing the individual voters to vote for the first respondent in the election petition could be seen only on the basis of evidence to be adduced in the trial. When the names of persons distributing such cards and the beneficiaries have been pleaded in the Election Petition by the Election Petitioner, its veracity could be tested only at the time of the Trial.

¶19As far as the allegations raised in paragraphs 20 to 22 in the Election Petition with regard to the bribing of voters by cash distribution is concerned, particulars with regard to the distributors of money and the beneficiaries are also pleaded in the Election Petition. In this regard, FIR was also registered in FIR.No.89 of 2024 on the file of Austinpatti Police Station. As far as the allegations raised in paragraph 23 in the Election Petition with regard to votes not counted due to failure to erase mock poll votes is concerned, particulars such as Booth No.170 @ Aruppukottai Constituency and Booth No.59 of 204 Sathur Constituency have been pleaded. Similarly, with regard to the allegations raised in paragraph 24 in the Election Petition with regard to booth capturing is concerned, particulars such as polling booth numbers 191, 104, 308, 309 & 273 of Thirumangalam Assembly Segment and the persons involved in such booth capturing are pleaded. Similarly, with regard to allegations contained in other paragraphs, this Court is of the view that the Election Petitioner has pleaded sufficient material facts and particulars in the Election Petition. Therefore, the disputed facts and issues cannot be decided in these applications filed to reject the Election Petition itself. Though the parties have elaborately made certain allegations and counter allegations in order to prove or disprove their contentions, the same cannot be appreciated by this Court nor any findings can be given in these applications.

¶20At this juncture, it is relevant to extract Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1961. " 83. Contents of petition.—(1)An election petition—

(a) shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies;

(b) 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; and

(c)shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) for the verification of pleadings: Provided that where the petitioner alleges any corrupt practice, the petition shall also be accompanied by an affidavit in the prescribed form in support of the allegation of such corrupt practice and the particulars thereof.

(2)Any schedule or annexure to the petition shall also be signed by the petitioner and verified in the same manner as the petition."

¶21Section 83(b) makes it clear that what is required is 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 such practice. On reading of the election petition, this Court is of the view that sufficient materials have been pleaded. The correctness of the statements made in the election petition cannot be gone into at this stage and the same can be be decided only at the stage of the trial. Whether guarantee card issued by the polling agents amounts to promise by the returned candidate are all matter of trial and the same cannot gone into at this stage.

¶22Thus, this Court has no hesitation in arriving at a conclusion that the Election Petition cannot be held as vague or bereft of material facts. The material facts contended, must be considered at the time of conduct of trial and not at this stage. When prima facie allegations are disclosed and such allegations are traceable with reference to the provisions of the Representation of the Peoples Act, then this Court at this stage cannot reject the Election Petition in limine, but to proceed with the trial, which would be appropriate in the interest of justice. This being the position, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prayer for rejection of the Election Petition is unacceptable and accordingly, this Court is inclined to proceed with the Election Petition in accordance with law.

¶23Accordingly, these applications are dismissed. No costs.

¶24Registry is directed to post the Election Petition No.4 of 2024 on 9.7.2026 for trial.

02.06.2026 dhk Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J. dhk Pre-delivery common order made in in E.L.P.No.4 of 2024

02.06.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on : 27.04.2026 Pronounced on : 02.06.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR in E.L.P.No.4 of 2024 B.Manickam Tagore .. Applicant in both O.As. Versus 1.V.Vijaya Prabakaran 2.Suresh 3.R.Radikaa 4.M.Ashok Kumar 5.S.Kaushik 6.S.Sekar 7.P.Palanichamy 8.S.Mariselvam 9.C.Muthukannu 10.G.Ganeshamoorthi 11.N.Sankaranarayanan 12.M.Sudalaimani 13.M.Selvakumar 14.V.V.Selvarajan 15.K.Selvi 16.K.Palanisamy 17.R.Pandiyammal 18.P.Mahendra Ramakrishnan 19.M.Manikandan 20.Mayak Kannan 21. M.Marieeswari 22.S.Rajagopal 23.Rajesh 24.V.K.Venkateswaran 25.Vedha @ Dhamodharan 26.T.Jayaraj 27.The Returning Officer 34–Virudhunagar Parliamentary Constituency The District Collector Virudhunagar .. Respondents in both O.As. Prayer in O.A.No.921 of 2024: Original Application filed under XIV Rule 80F of O.S.Rules read with Order VI Rule 16 of Code of Civil Procedure, praying to strike of the pleadings mentioned in the schedule as scandalous, frivolous, vexatious and abuse of process of law. Prayer in O.A.No.922 of 2024: Original Application filed under XIV Rule 80 of O.S.Rules read with Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, praying for allowing the application and rejection of the election petition. In both applications For Applicant : Mr.Abdul Saleem, Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Elambharathi For Respondents : Mr.N.C.Ashok Kumar for R1 COMMON ORDER The first respondent herein filed election petition ELP. No. 4 of 2024 challenging the Election held on 19.04.2024 for 34, Virudhunagar Parliamentary Constituency on the grounds of improper acceptance of the nomination of the respondent/applicant herein and also for suppressing the material facts in the nomination papers regarding the entire assets and criminal antecedents; bribing of voters-congress party guarantee card and cash distribution; votes were not counted due to erase of mock poll votes; booth capturing; stoppage of vote counting; expenditure has been incurred more than the amount prescribed by the ECI and malpractices during counting of postal ballots. 2. The applicant in both the applications herein is the Returned Candidate and the first respondent in the Election Petition. The first respondent herein is the Election Petitioner. 3.a. It is alleged in the Election Petition that the applicant/first respondent filed his nomination on 25.03.2024 and the same was uploaded in the website of the Election Commission and were scrutinised and accepted on 28.03.2024. It is the contention of the petitioner that the first respondent has suppressed the information about the criminal antecedents, properties owned by him and his family members as well as his educational qualifications, which is contrary under Form 26 under Rule 4A of Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 and Section 33A of the Representation of People Act, 1961. Hence, it is the contention that failure to disclose the entire assets in the name of the candidate and his spouse is a substantial lapse and the election of the returned candidate is liable to be declared void on this sole ground itself and this amounts to corrupt practice of undue influence within the meaning of Section 123(2) of the Representation of People Act read with Section 100(1)(b) of the Representation of People Act. 3.b. Another ground raised by the Election Petitioner is that the first respondent has involved in corrupt practice by way of bribing of voters through Congress Party Guarantee Card. It is the contention of the Election petitioner that the first respondent through Rajkumar, Raja Chockar, Virudhunagar, District Congress Party President, N.R.Kamaraj, K.K.Gurusamy, Sudha, Vairam, Ex.Councilor, Balakrishnan Ganesan, Manikandan, Srinivasagam, Kamatchi and Kadambavanam have indulged in various corrupt practices including the bribing of voters by distributing cash and inducing the voters by giving promises of providing Rs.1 lakh per annum to the voters namely Senthil Kumar, Vigneshkumar, Anandakumar, Saravanku