Omission of a singular fact would lead to an incomplete cause of action: Supreme Court in Kanimozhi’s case
On May 04, 2023, the Supreme Court of India dismissed an election petition filed against DMK (Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam) leader Kanimozhi Karunanidhi. In 2019, she was elected as a member of Parliament from Thoothukudi Lok Sabha constituency. The matter was heard by a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela M Trivedi. The bench said that “It is the duty of the court to examine the petition irrespective of any written statement or denial and reject the petition if it does not disclose a cause of action.” The Supreme Court also highlighted that mere bald and vague allegations without any basis would not be sufficient compliance with the requirement of stating material facts in the Election Petition. The bench determined that there were no material facts stated in the petition constituting a cause of action under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the RP (Representatives of the People) Act. Therefore, in the absence of material facts constituting a cause of action for filing an Election petition under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the RP Act, the Election petition was required to be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC (Code of Civil Procedure) read with Section 13(1)(a) of the RP Act. In short, it was determined that the omission of a single material fact could lead to an incomplete cause of action.
In this case, the nominations were invited pursuant to the notification issued by the Chief Election Commissioner for the elections to the 17th Lok Sabha. The elections were held as scheduled, and the appellant was declared elected. The Election petitioner/respondent (voter) filed the Election Petition before the High Court seeking a declaration that the election of the returned candidate was void and liable to be set aside. This was said on the ground that the information sought by the Election Commission of India regarding the payment of income tax of her spouse was not provided by her in the affidavit. The appellant/returned candidate had filed OA praying to strike off paragraphs 5 to 17 of the Election petition and to reject the Election petition in limine on the ground inter alia that the averments and allegations contained in the Election petition were wholly vague and bereft of material facts. The High Court vide the impugned common order dismissed both the Original Applications filed by the appellant candidate.
Also Read: Legal News
In this context, the Supreme Court stated that at the time of scrutiny of the nomination paper, neither any objection was raised, nor the Returning Officer had found any lapse or non-compliance of Section 33 or Rule 4A of the Rules. There were no material facts stated in the petition constituting a cause of action under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the RP Act. In the absence of material facts, the Election petition was required to be dismissed and the appeal was allowed.
