Page 1

Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2538-40 OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.  2487-2489 of 2015)

Mohd. Akbar ...Appellant

Versus

Ashok Sahu & Ors. …Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Chelameswar,  J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The General Election to Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly  

took  place  in  2013.    The  appellant  herein  is  one  of  the  

contesting  candidates  for  72-Kawardha  Legislative  Assembly  

Constituency.  

3. Polling took place on 19.11.2013. The result was declared  

on 8.12.2013.   First respondent was declared elected.   The  

appellant secured the second highest number of votes in the  

said  election.   On  20.1.2014,  the  appellant  filed  Election  

Petition  No.  4  of  2014  challenging  the  election  of  the  first  

respondent  on  various  grounds  including  the  commission  of  

1

Page 2

certain corrupt practices.  On 29.1.2014, the High Court issued  

summons to the respondents.

4. It appears that matter was listed on 25.3.2014.   It is not  

very clear from the records whether all the respondents were  

served or not.   But from copy of the order dated 25.3.2014, it  

appears  that  only  respondent  Nos.  1,  5,  9  and  10  were  

represented  by  counsel  and  other  respondents  were  not  

represented.   The High Court recorded an order as follows:-

“There  is  an  oral  prayer  made  for  extension  of  time  for  filing  written  statement  but  there  is  no  application  is  writing  in  that  regard.

In  the  interest  of  justice,  three  days  time  is  granted  to  learned  counsel for the respondent to file application if any.”

5. On  26.3.2014,  the  first  respondent  herein  filed  two  

applications – one invoking Order VII  Rule 11 of the Code of  

Civil  Procedure,  1908  (for  short  “CPC”)  and  another  raising  

certain  preliminary  objections  to  the  maintainability  of  the  

election petition.    

6. On 2.4.2014, two more interlocutory applications came to  

be filed, one each at the instance of respondent No. 1 and 10  

seeking extension of time for filing the written statement.  The  

said  applications  were  allowed  and  the  High  Court  granted  

another 30 days’ time for filing the written statement.    

2

Page 3

7. Thereafter  the  matter  underwent  number  of  

adjournments, the details of which may not be necessary for  

the purpose of this order.   Eventually, arguments on Order VII  

Rule 11 CPC were heard in part on 27.6.2014.   After two more  

adjournments, on 1.7.2014 arguments on the said applications  

were  concluded  and  the  matter  was  fixed  for  orders  on  

21.7.2014.  However,  the order  was not  pronounced and the  

matter was again adjourned for 30.7.2014 on which date the  

interlocutory  applications  filed  by  the  respondents  were  

dismissed.

8. On  14.8.2014,  appearance  was  entered  on  behalf  of  

respondent No. 8 by one Shri Ashish Shrivastav, who is none  

other than the brother of Justice Manindra M. Srivastava who  

was the Judge hearing the Election Petition.  Justice Manindra  

Srivastava promptly recused from the election petition and in  

our opinion rightly.  On such recusal, the election petition was  

allotted to another learned Judge.   

9. In the meanwhile on 26.8.2014, a complaint regarding the  

appearance  by  the  above-mentioned  Ashish  Srivastav  was  

made to the Hon’ble Chief Justice.   The election petition was  

further adjourned.

3

Page 4

10. It appears that respondent No. 8 filed another application  

under  Order  VII  Rule  11  of  CPC.   But,  the  counsel  for  

respondent No.  8,  Shri  Ashish Srivastava filed an application  

seeking permission to withdraw his Vakalatnama.   The said  

application was allowed by the High Court.   On 28.11.2014, a  

Vakalatnama came to be filed by Shri B.P. Gupta on behalf of  

the respondent No. 1 though there is another counsel on record  

already.  It appears that at the instance of Shri B.P. Gupta, the  

matter was once again adjourned ostensibly to enable Shri B.P.  

Gupta  to  get  ready  with  the  case.   On  4.12.2014, the  

application filed by the respondent No. 8 under Order VII Rule  

11 came to be dismissed.      

11. Broadly,  it  is  in  the  above-mentioned  background  the  

instant SLP came to be filed complaining that notwithstanding  

the  mandate  of  Section  86,  sub-Section  (7)  of  the  

Representation of the People Act, 1951, the High Court has not  

disposed of the election petition so far.   Section 86, sub-

Section (7) reads as follows:-

Section 86 (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 on which the election petition is presented to  the High Court for trial.

4

Page 5

12. It  was  the  pious  hope  of  the  Parliament  that  election  

disputes  under  the  Representation  of  the  People  Act,  1951  

should be resolved expeditiously.   The purpose is obvious.  The  

tenure  of  the  members  of  the  Parliament  as  well  as  the  

Legislature of the State is relatively short.  It is five years in the  

case of Lok Sabha and Legislative Assembly, and six years in  

the case of Rajya Sabha and Legislative Council. Therefore, if  

there is a dispute regarding the election of any member of any  

one  of  the  said  bodies,  it  is  desirable  that  the  dispute  is  

resolved as early as possible for various reasons.

(i) Membership  of  the  Legislative  bodies  under  the  

scheme  of  our  constitution  is  a  sacred  responsibility.  The  

continuance of any member in such bodies who secured his  

election to such a body by legally impermissible means even  

for  a  day  is  most  undesirable.  Such  continuance  affords  an  

opportunity to such a member to take part in the law making  

process affecting the destinies of the people.

(ii) Even  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  contesting  

candidates, unless the rights and the obligations are decided  

within  a  reasonable  time,  the  adjudication  and  the  

consequences of  the adjudication may eventually  remain on  

paper without any tangible effect insofar as the participation of  

such parties in the legislative process. 5

Page 6

13. However, we are sad to state that invariably the resolution  

of  election  disputes  in  this  country  takes  unacceptably  long  

periods in most of the cases.  Very rarely an election dispute  

gets  resolved  during  the  tenure  of  the  declared  candidate  

reducing the adjudicatory process into  a  mockery of  justice.  

Such delay coupled with a right of appeal to this Court makes  

the whole process of adjudication a task in a good number of  

cases.   The reasons are many, we will only mention few;

(i) The stakes are very high for the parties.  Nothing  

short of the membership of a constitutional body for a  

limited period. The power and glory that go with such  

membership is too high and valuable and the returned  

candidates  naturally  leave  no  stone  unturned  for  

protracting the litigation as long as possible.

(ii) The law of elections and election disputes is highly  

technical.   Therefore, there is always scope for lot of  

objections and cross-objections regarding every step in  

the conduct of the election petition.

(iii) The  absence  of  dedicated  Benches  in  the  High  

Court for resolution of the election disputes is another  

6

Page 7

factor which contributes enormously to the delay in the  

adjudicatory process.

14. We therefore deem it desirable that in each High Court  

dedicated Benches are created by the Chief Justice to deal with  

the election petitions exclusively.   In other words, those judges  

assigned with the adjudication of election petitions preferably  

may not be burdened with any other work until the adjudication  

of the election petitions is completed.  An exercise which may  

not be difficult especially the class of litigation occurs only once  

in 5 or 6 years and the number of cases would be very limited.  

We are conscious of the fact that it is not possible for laying  

down any absolute rules in this regard.  Essentially it is for a  

Chief Justice of the High Court to run the administration and  

devise ways and means for expeditiously disposing of the cases  

brought before the High Court.   We only gently remind that the  

kind of delay in the adjudication of election disputes exposes  

the High Court’s unpleasant criticism damaging the credibility  

of the institution.  A situation which is certainly required to be  

avoided at any cost.

15. The facts of the present case are telling. Some 15 months  

after the election, the trial of the election petition has not yet  

commenced. In the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to  7

Page 8

request the Chief Justice to take necessary steps for disposal of  

the Election Petition No. 4 of 2014 expeditiously, by devising  

such appropriate measures as the Hon’ble Chief Justice may  

deem fit and proper in the circumstances.

16. We also  place  on  record  our  disapproval  of  the  tactics  

adopted  by  the  respondents  in  engaging  counsel  whose  

appearance is bound to embarrass the presiding Judge and we  

feel sad for the noble profession, some of whose members are  

willing to take part in such unwholesome practices.  

17. Appeals are accordingly disposed of.

….………………………….J.                                                          (J. Chelameswar)

…….……………………….J.            (Rohinton Fali  

Nariman) New Delhi; February 27, 2015  

8