Supreme Court Scrutinizes Election Petition Technicalities in MP Poll Dispute
Last Updated on December 17, 2024 by Amit Patra
In a sophisticated legal fight that underlines the intricate procedural complexities of electoral disputes, a Congress MLA has moved the Supreme Court against an order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court refusing to reject an election petition filed by a BJP MP.
The case, in effect, is about the technical interpretation of the requirements as to the affidavits under the Representation of the People Act and lays bare the delicate balance that exists between procedural compliance and substantive justice in election challenges. Congress MLA Chanda Singh Gaur seeks to question an election petition filed by BJP MP Rahul Singh Lodhi, which followed the 2023 Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly elections.
The main legal controversy revolves around the form and sufficiency of an affidavit to be filed alongside the election petition. Gaur’s case is that the Lodhi affidavit is insufficient on the law, on oath as far as corrupt practices are concerned. Her application at the threshold under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code has been for the rejection of the election petition on technical grounds.
The Supreme Court bench, consisting of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, approached the issue with some subtlety. Justice Kant’s tentative observation underlined a critical distinction: while minor defects in the affidavit may be curable in cases where no corrupt practice is alleged, such technical compliance becomes more stringent when corrupt practices are claimed.
Senior Advocates Devadatt Kamat and Atmaram Nadkarni appeared for the opposing parties. While Nadkarni relied upon an earlier judgment of the Supreme Court to argue that substantial compliance is enough, Kamat argued that the present case was on different footing and no corrupt practice is actually proved.
The High Court had earlier dismissed Gaur’s plea, saying the affidavit filed by Lodhi substantially complied with the legal requirements. The court had observed that the affidavit categorically referred to paragraphs containing details of alleged corrupt practices, thus satisfying the technical requirement.
By posting the matter to January 2025, the Supreme Court gave notice of its intent to carefully unpack labyrinthine legal details of the procedures of electoral petitions. The case does promise critical insight into the interpretation of procedural requirements in election disputes.
This is a battle that perfectly captures how complexly entwining electoral law, procedural technicality, and democratic representation go together.
