Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Orissa Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra has dismissed an election petition challenging the election of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan from the Sambalpur Parliamentary Constituency in the 2024 Lok Sabha election. The Court held that the petition was defective for not specifying the definite nature of the alleged corrupt practice attributed to Pradhan and for failing to annex the documents said to support those allegations. The dispute concerned claims of incomplete and incorrect disclosures in the nomination affidavit and general allegations of corrupt conduct. Concluding that the petition did not contain the material facts or particulars required to constitute a triable issue, the Court rejected the challenge.

The election petition was filed by Dr. Subash Mohapatra, an unsuccessful candidate from the 03-Sambalpur Parliamentary Constituency in the 2024 Lok Sabha election, challenging the election of Dharmendra Pradhan, who was declared returned candidate after securing the majority of valid votes. The petition sought declarations relating to alleged non-disclosure and incorrect information in Pradhan’s nomination and Form-26 affidavit, including assertions concerning assets, liabilities, criminal antecedents, and validity of votes. It also sought a declaration that the petitioner be treated as the elected candidate.

Also Read: Withholding Without Returning Defies Federalism; Governor Cannot Keep Bill Pending Without Sending It Back To Assembly: Supreme Court In Presidential Reference

Dharmendra Pradhan filed an application under Order VI Rule 16 and Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, seeking rejection of the election petition. The application stated that the petition did not comply with Sections 81(3) and 83 of the Act, alleging that the copy served on him was not a true copy of the petition filed in court. It was further asserted that the petition did not contain the material facts required to constitute a cause of action, that allegations of corrupt practice were made without particulars, and that the affidavit was not in the prescribed Form 25. It was also stated that documents referred to in the petition were not annexed.

The petitioner did not file objections to the interlocutory application despite opportunities granted. During hearings, the petitioner filed multiple interim petitions. A request to submit written notes of arguments was allowed, but the notes were not filed within the permitted time.

The Court recorded the settled approach to an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, stating that “while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the Court must confine itself to the averments made in the plaint or petition and the documents filed therewith. The defence set up in the written statement is immaterial at this stage.”

Referring to the Supreme Court in P.V. Guru Raj Reddy v. P. Neeradha Reddy, the Court quoted that “it is the averments in the plaint that have to be read as a whole to find out whether it discloses a cause of action or whether the suit is barred under any law … At the stage of exercise of power under Order 7 Rule 11, the stand of the defendants in the written statement or in the application for rejection of the plaint is wholly immaterial.”

On Sections 81 and 83 of the Representation of the People Act, the Court extracted and relied upon the statutory requirement that an election petition “shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies” and “shall set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice … including … names of the parties … and the date and place of the commission of each such practice.”

On defects in copies and affidavits, the Court quoted T. Phungzathang v. Hangkhanlian and T.M. Jacob v. C. Poulose to record that “the expression ‘copy’ in Section 81(3) of the Act … means a copy which is substantially so and which does not contain any material or substantial variation of a vital nature as could possibly mislead a reasonable person to understand and meet the charges/allegations made against him in the election petition.” It also noted that such omissions in notarisation are “only curable irregularities.”

Summarising the effect of Section 83, the Court quoted G.M. Siddeshwar v. Prasanna Kumar that “although non-compliance with the provisions of Section 83 of the Act is a curable defect, yet there must be substantial compliance … however, if there is total and complete non-compliance … then the petition cannot be described as an election petition and may be dismissed at the threshold.”

The Court referred to Kanimozhi Karunanidhi v. A. Santhana Kumar and Karim Uddin Barbhuiya v. Aminul Haque Laskar to state that “omission of a single material fact would lead to an incomplete cause of action and the statement of plaint would become bad” and that “an Election petition can be summarily dismissed on the omission of a single material fact leading to an incomplete cause of action.”

Evaluating the pleadings, the Court recorded that “though it is repeatedly alleged in the Election Petition that the returned candidate committed ‘corrupt practices,’ it does not specifically identify the precise nature or category of such corrupt practice, as contemplated under Section 123 of the R.P Act, 1951.” It further observed that the petitioner “has failed to furnish the necessary particulars … such as the material facts, dates, places, and persons involved in the alleged corrupt practice” and that “in absence of such specific pleadings … it cannot be said to be amounting to substantial compliance with the statutory provisions enshrined under Section 83.”

Finally, the Court stated that “the omission on the part of the Election Petitioner to specifically plead and mention the precise nature of the alleged ‘Corrupt Practice’, as envisaged under Section 123 of the R.P. Act, constitutes a fatal defect going to the root of the matter, which cannot be cured even by invoking the Doctrine of Substantial Compliance.” It added that failure to file supporting documents “amounts to a further fatal defect, rendering the Election Petition liable to be dismissed at the very outset.”

Also Read: Right To Travel Abroad Not Curbed By Pending Disciplinary Proceedings: Orissa High Court Quashes Govt Refusal Of NOC In Passport Application

The Court directed: “the prayer made in the I.A. for rejection of the Plaint/Election Petition under Order VII Rule-11 stands allowed. As the Application for rejection of Plaint stands allowed, this Court is of the view that the relief sought under Order-VI Rule-16 of C.P.C. has become redundant.”

“Accordingly, the I.A. stands disposed of. Consequently, the ELPET No.30 of 2024 stands rejected. Office is directed to communicate the substance of this order to the Election Commission and the Speaker of the State Legislative Assembly at the earliest, so also an authenticated copy of this order to the Election Commission, in terms of Section 103 of the R.P. Act, read with Rule 16, under Chapter-XXXIII of the High Court of Orissa Rules, 1948.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Akshaya Kumar Subudhi, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. G.K. Agarwal, Senior Advocate, along with Ms. S. Srivastava, Advocate, for Respondent No.1.

Case Title: Dr. Subash Mohapatra v. Dharmendra Pradhan & Others.

Case Number: ELPET No.30 of 2024 & I.A. No.10 of 2025

Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra.