In a case decided recently on October 1, 2015, a 2-judge bench of the Supreme Court, comprising of Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Prafulla C. Pant, has directed that an election petition has to be decided in quite promptitude as there is an obligation cast upon the Court to dispose of the same within a period of six months. The Court referred to the provision of Section 86(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, in this regard. These directions were given in the case of Pukhrem Sharatchandra Singh v. Mairembam Prithviraj @ Prithibiraj Singh [Civil Appeal No. 8063 of 2015].
The appellant was a candidate (of Nationalist Congress Party or NCP) for the 27-Moirang Assembly Constituency of Bishnupur District, Manipur, in the 10th Manipur Legislative Assembly Election. The election for the Manipur Legislative Assembly was held on 28.01.2012. The respondent became successful in the election and was declared as a member of the Manipur Legislative Assembly. At the time of scrutiny, the appellant had objected to the nomination of the respondent as per Section 36(2) of the said Act on the ground that he had failed to file the proper affidavit as prescribed under Article 173 of the Constitution and further that the affidavit was a forged one inasmuch as he had falsely stated at paragraph 9 of the affidavit dated 06.01.2012 that his highest educational qualification was MBA, and he had passed out from the Mysore University and that apart the said affidavit also contained certain other facts which were incorrect and he had also not subscribed to the oath before the Returning Officer or any competent authority as prescribed by the Election Commission of India. The Returning Officer, after affording an opportunity of hearing, declined to reject the nomination. After the election was over, the counting of votes took place and the respondent was declared as the elected candidate. The appellant challenged the election before the High Court of Manipur at Imphal in Election Petition No. 1 of 2012. However, the respondent filed the written statement after two years to the main election petition and during the pendency of the election petition, the respondent (i.e., the winning candidate) filed a number of miscellaneous applications due to which the election petition remained pending for a long time.
It is in these circumstances that the Supreme Court held that an election petition has to be decided in quite promptitude as there is an obligation cast upon the Court to dispose of the same within a period of six months. Engrafting a provision in the nature of Section 86(7) of the Act, the legislative intendment is clear that the Court has to endeavour to dispose of an election petition as expeditiously as possible and not to allow the parties to take resort to unnecessary adjournments or file vexatious applications.
Section 86(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, lays down as under:
“(7) Every election petition shall be tried as expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be made to conclude the trial within six months from the date of which the election petition is presented to the High Court for trial.”
The Supreme Court noted that in the present case, the elected candidate had been taking time at his own pleasure and leisure and filing applications as he desired giving vent to his whim and fancy and the High Court had granted adjournment in an extremely liberal manner. The Supreme Court observed that all the aspects can be taken exception to and they really run counter to the conception of expeditious disposal.
The court further observed that the fundamental purpose for expeditious disposal of an election petition is to sustain the purity of parliamentary democracy.
The Supreme Court observed that:
“A voter casts his vote as a responsible citizen to choose the masters for governing the country. That being the trust of the electorate in an elected candidate, when he faces an assail to his election, it should be his sanguine effort to become free from the assail in the election petition and work with attainment and not take shelter seeking adjournments with the elated hope that he can be triumphant in the contest by passage of time. This kind of attitude has to be curbed from all angles because law does not countenance it.”
Since the High Court had not even framed issues even after 3 years, the Supreme Court directed that it shall proceed to frame issues; thereafter, the evidence shall commence and the high court shall, regard being had to the statutory command and the norms in a democratic polity, dispose of the election petition by end of February 2016. The Supreme Court further directed that all the miscellaneous applications shall be decided at the time of final hearing so that the procrastination is totally ostracised.
Full judgment of the Supreme Court can be seen here.
