1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL  APPEAL NO.  2689       OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 23285 of 2011)

Jitu Patnaik …. Appellant

Versus

Sanatan Mohakud & Ors.                   ….Respondents

JUDGMENT

R.M. Lodha, J.  

Leave granted.

2. The  two  paragraphs  –  7(A)  and  7(D)  –  of  the  

election petition occupied significant time of this Court on 3 days –  

February  7,  2012,  February  9,  2012  and  February  14,  2012  –  to  

determine  the correctness of the order dated June 21, 2011 passed  

by the Orissa High Court whereby the High Court directed that the  

election petition shall proceed in respect of the pleadings contained in  

these two paragraphs.

2

3. On the announcement of the  14th Assembly Election  

to the Orissa State Legislative Assembly, insofar as it related to 25—

Champua Assembly Constituency, the following schedule of election  

was notified:

SCHEDULE OF ELECTION 28.3.2009 To 4.4.2009

PERIOD  PRESCRIBED  FOR  FILLING  NOMINATION.

6.4.2009 DATE  FIXED  FOR  SCRUTINY  OF  NOMINATION

8.4.2009 DATE OF WITHDRAWAL 23.4.2009 DATE OF POLLING 16.5.2009 DATE  OF  COUNTING/  DECLARATION  

OF RESULT. 28.5.2009 DATE BEFORE WHICH THE ELECTION  

SHALL BE COMPLETED.

4. As per the above schedule, on expiry of the time of  

withdrawal  on  April  8,  2009,  the  returning  officer  prepared  and  

published the following  list of contesting candidates.

Sl.  No .

Name of the contesting  candidate

Name of the  political  party

Election  symbol

1. Chitaranjan Nayek B.S.P. Elephant 2. Bidyadhar Mohanta C.P.I. Ears of  Corn  

and Sickle 3. Muralimanohar Sharma B.J.P. Lotus 4. Laxman Kumar Sethi J.M.M. Bow & Arrow 5. Sanatan Mahakud I.N.C. Hand 6. Keshab Mohanta Samrudha  

Orissa  Nagara

7. Khitish  Chandra Orissa Violin

3

Mohanta Mukti  Morcha

8. Jadumani Patra Samajbadi  Party

Saw

9. Akhila Kumar Mohanta Independen t

Television

10. Akhileswar Giri Independen t

Battery  &  Torch

11. Abhimanyu Mohanta Independen t

Coconut

12. Arabinda Behera Independen t

Ripe  Plantation

13. Ashok Mohanta Independen t

Road Roller

14. Kusha Apot Independen t

Scissors

15. Jitu Patnaik Independen t

Saucer  &  Plate

16. Deepak Moharana Independen t

Camera

17. Puma  Chandra  Mohanta

Independen t

Baloon

18. Prabhupada Mishra Independen t

Almirah

19. Buta Singh Independen t

Ceiling Fan

20. Bhabani Mohanta Independen t

Candle

21. Manoj Kumar Mohanta Independen t

Rail Engine

22. Sanjita Nayek Independen t

Batsman

5. It so happened that one of the contesting candidates  

at  Sl.  No.  9,  namely,  Akhila  Kumar  Mohanta,  who  was  an  

independent  candidate,  died  on  April  13,  2009.  His  death  was  

allegedly  informed  to  the  returning  officer.  However,  his  name  

continued  to  appear  in  the  list  of  contesting  candidates  and  was

4

included in Electronic Voting Machine (EVM). The polling was held on  

April  23,  2009  in  all  218  booths  of  the  25-Champua  Assembly  

Constituency through EVM. The total votes recorded in the EVMs of  

218  booths  were  1,25,342  and   postal  ballots  were  10.   The  

appellant, Jitu Patnaik who  contested as an independent candidate  

secured 27700 votes.   The first  respondent,  Sanatan Mohakud,  a  

candidate of Indian National Congress, secured 27555 votes.  The  

deceased Akhila Kumar Mohanta got 550 votes.  Since the appellant  

secured the highest number of votes, he was declared elected from  

25-Champua Assembly Constituency.

6. The  first  respondent  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  

‘election  petitioner’)  challenged  the  election  of  the  appellant  

(hereinafter  referred to as ‘returned candidate’) by filing an election  

petition before the Orissa High Court. In paragraphs 7(A) to 7(G), the  

election petitioner set out the case for declaring the election of the  

returned candidate to be void and declare the election petitioner duly  

elected  to  the  Orissa  State  Legislative  Assembly  from  

25-Champua Assembly Constituency.

7. On service of the notice of the election petition, the  

returned candidate appeared and  filed his  written statement/reply  

traversing the pleadings set out in the election petition. The returned  

candidate also made an application under Order VI Rule 16 read with

5

Section 151 and Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure,  

1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) read with Section 86(1) of the Representation  

of the People Act, 1951 (for short, ‘1951 Act’) with prayer to strike  

out/reject the pleadings made in paragraphs 7(A), 7(B), 7(C), 7(D),  

7(E),  7(F) and 7(G) of  the election petition and reject  the election  

petition.

8. The  High  Court  considered  the  above  application  

made  by  the  returned  candidate  and,   after  hearing  the  learned  

counsel for the election petitioner and the returned candidate, struck  

out paragraphs 7(B), 7(C), 7(E), 7(F) and 7(G) of the election petition  

by  invoking  its  jurisdiction  under  Order  VI,  Rule  16(c)  of  CPC.  

However,  the  High  Court  ordered  that  the  election  petition  shall  

proceed in respect of the remaining pleadings. In other words, the  

High Court permitted trial of the election petition on the pleadings set  

out in paragraphs 7(A) and 7(D).

9. The returned candidate is aggrieved by the above  

order to the extent trial of the election petition on the pleadings set  

out in paragraphs 7(A) and 7(D)  has been ordered to be continued.  

According to the returned candidate,  these two paragraphs do not  

set  out   the  material  facts  to   constitute   cause  of  action  under  

Section 100 (1)(d)(iii) and/or (iv) of the 1951 Act.  

10. It  may  be  stated  immediately  that  the  election

6

petitioner has not challenged the order of the High Court striking out  

pleadings in paragraphs 7(B), 7(C), 7(E), 7(F) and 7(G).  

11. We have heard Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned senior  

counsel  for  the  appellant  –  returned  candidate  and  Mr.  Mukul  

Rohatgi,  learned senior  counsel  for  respondent  – 1 – the election  

petitioner.  

12. We  shall  first  take  up  the  pleadings  set  out  in  

paragraph 7(A) of the election petition which reads as follows :

“7(A) That  Akhila  Kumar  Mohanta,  who  had  filed  nomination as an independent candidate and was assigned  symbol Television died on 13.04.2009. His death was duly  notified by the Returning Officer. In view of his death his  name/symbol should not have been displayed in the E.V.M.  on the date of polling.

Both  AKhila  Kumar  Mohanta  as  well  as  the  Election  petitioner  were sharing a common ideology. Both  were members of Indian National Congress. But since the  Election petitioner was having more support base amongst  the  rank  and  file  of  the  party  he  was  nominated  by  the  I.N.C. as a party nominee to contest the Election and Akhila  Kumar  Mohanta  filed  his  nomination  as  an  independent  candidate. The Voters who recorded their vote in the EVM  on the date of  Polling,  i.e.,  23.04.09,  in  favour  of  Akhila  Kumar Mohanta were basically supporter of Indian National  Congress. In the event Akhila Kumar Mohanta would have  withdrawn from contest or otherwise his name and symbol  would not have displayed on the E.V.M. on account of his  death, then the voters who have recorded their votes in his  favour  would  have  recorded  the  same  in  favour  of  the  election  Petitioner  in  view  of  their  party  affiliation.  As  appears from the recording in Form-20, 550 (five hundred  fifty) votes have been recorded in favour of the deceased  contesting candidate Akhila Kumar Mohanta. Had his name  been not shown/displayed on the EVM, all these 550 (Five  hundred fifty) votes would have been recorded in favour of  the  Election  petitioner.  On  account  of  the  above  wrong

7

committed by the Returning Officer the prospect of wining  of the Election petitioner has been adversely affected and  the result of Election has been materially affected.”        

13. The crux of the above averments is that one of the  

independent candidates Akhila Kumar Mohanta had died on April 13,  

2009 after the expiry of withdrawal date;  his death was duly notified  

to the returning officer but despite that his name was displayed on  

the EVM on the date of the polling (although he was already dead)  

and had his name not been  shown/displayed on the EVM,  all the  

550 votes polled in his favour would have been voted in favour of the  

election  petitioner  as  the  deceased  candidate  and  the  election  

petitioner shared the common ideology and  both were members of  

the Indian National Congress and on account of wrong committed by  

the returning officer, the prospect of the  election petitioner has been  

adversely affected. In light of the above pleadings, the question that  

falls for determination is: if an independent contesting candidate dies  

after  the  publication  of  list  of  contesting  candidates,   does  the  

electoral  law  as  contained  in  1951  Act  or  the  Rules  framed  

thereunder  cast  any  obligation  upon  the  returning  officer  not  to  

display the name of such deceased candidate in the EVM.

14. In  order  to  answer  the  above  question,  it  is  

appropriate to survey the scheme of the 1951 Act in regard to the

8

conduct of elections. Part V, Chapter I of the 1951 Act is relevant in  

this regard. Section 30 requires the Election Commission, as soon as  

the  notification  calling  upon  a  constituency  to  elect  a  member  or  

members  is  issued,  to  appoint  (a)  the  last  date  for  making  

nominations, (b) the date for the scrutiny of nominations, (c) the last  

date  for  the  withdrawal  of  candidatures,  (d)  the  date  or  dates  on  

which a poll  shall,  if  necessary,  be taken and (e)  the date before  

which  the  election  is  to  be  completed.  Section  31  requires  the  

returning officer, on issue of the  notification under Section 30, to give  

public  notice  of  the  intended  election  inviting  nominations  of  

candidates for such election. Sections 32 and 33, inter alia, provide  

for nomination of candidates for election, presentation of nomination  

paper and requirements for a valid nomination.  Under the scheme of  

these  two  sections,  a  candidate  for  election  has  to  be  validly  

nominated.  As per  Section 36,   after  the nomination papers are  

received, on the date fixed for the scrutiny, returning officer is to hold  

scrutiny of nominations. Immediately after all the nomination papers  

have been scrutinized and decisions accepting or rejecting the same  

have been recorded, the returning officer is to prepare a list of validly  

nominated candidates and affix it on  his notice board. Section 37  

enables  any  of  the  validly  nominated  candidates  to  withdraw  his  

candidature  on  or  before  the  last  date  for  the  withdrawal  of

9

candidature.  

15. Section 38 makes the provision for publication of list  

of contesting candidates. It reads as follows :

“S. 38. - Publication of list of contesting candidates.— (1) Immediately after the expiry of the period within which  candidatures may be withdrawn under sub- section (1) of  section 37, the returning officer shall prepare and publish  in such form and manner as may be prescribed a list of  contesting  candidates,  that  is  to  say,  candidates  who  were included in the list of validly nominated candidates  and who have not withdrawn their candidature within the  said period.  

(2)  For  the  purpose  of  listing  the  names  under  sub-  section (1), the candidates shall be classified as follows,  namely:-  

       (i) candidates of recognised political parties;  

     (ii) candidates of registered political parties other than  those mentioned in clause (i);  

      (iii) other candidates.  

(3) The categories mentioned in sub- section (2) shall be  arranged in the order specified therein and the names of  candidates  in  each  category  shall  be  arranged  in  alphabetical  order  and the  addresses of  the  contesting  candidates  as  given  in  the  nomination  papers  together  with such other particulars as may be prescribed.”

16. Section 38, thus, provides that immediately after the  

expiry of the period within which candidatures may be withdrawn, the  

returning  officer  is  to  prepare  and  publish  a  list  of  contesting  

candidates, that is to say, candidates who were included in the list of  

validly  nominated  candidates  and  who  have  not  withdrawn  their

10

candidature within the said period. The candidates who survive the  

date of the withdrawal of candidatures are described in Section 38  

as ‘contesting candidates’. The list of contesting candidates prepared  

and  published  by  the  returning  officer  contains  the  names  of  the  

contesting candidates in alphabetical order and the addresses of the  

contesting  candidates  as  given  in  the  nomination  papers  together  

with such other particulars as may be prescribed.

17. Part  V,  Chapter III  of  the 1951 Act deals with the  

general procedure at elections. Section 52, after amendment in 1996,  

deals with the situation of a death of a candidate of a recognized  

political party before poll. It reads as follows :

“S.-52. - Death of a candidate of a recognized political party  before the poll.— (1) If a candidate set up by a recognised  political party,-  

(a) dies at any time after 11 A. M. on the last date for making  nominations  and  his  nomination  is  found  valid  on  scrutiny  under section 36; or   (b)  whose nomination has been found valid on scrutiny under  section 36 and who has not withdrawn his candidature under  section 37, dies, and in either case, a report  of his death is  received  at  any  time  before  the  publication  of  the  list  of  contesting candidates under section 38; or  

(c) dies as a contesting candidate and a report of his death is  received before the commencement of the poll,  the returning  officer shall, upon being satisfied about the fact of the death of  the candidate, by order, announce an adjournment of the poll  to a date to be notified later  and report the fact to the Election  Commission and also to the appropriate authority:  

11

     Provided that no order for adjourning a poll should be made  in a case referred to in clause (a) except after the scrutiny of all  the  nominations  including  the  nomination  of  the  deceased  candidate.  

(2) The Election Commission shall, on receipt of a report from  the  returning  officer  under  sub-  section  (1),  call  upon  the  recognised  political  party,  whose  candidate  has  died;  to  nominate another candidate for the said poll within seven days  of issue of such notice to such recognised political party and  the provisions of  sections 30 to 37 shall,  so far  as may be,  apply  in  relation to  such nomination  as they would  apply  to  other nominations:  

Provided that  no person who has given a notice of  withdrawal of his candidature under sub- section (1) of section  37  before  the  adjournment  of  the  poll  shall  be  ineligible  for  being  nominated  as  a  candidate  for  the  election  after  such  adjournment.  

(3) Where a list of contesting candidates had been published  under section 38 before the adjournment of the poll under sub-  section (1), the returning officer shall again prepare and publish  a fresh list of contesting candidates under that section so as to  include  the  name  of  the  candidate  who  has  been  validly  nominated under sub- section (2).  

Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, sections 33 and  38,"  recognised  political  party",  means  a  political  party  recognised  by  the  Election  Commission  under  the  Election  Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968.”

18. There is no provision other than Section 52 in the  

1951 Act which provides for the consequences following the death of  

a candidate after the publication of list of contesting candidates under  

Section 38 and before poll. The Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 (for  

short, ‘1961 Rules’) also do not provide for  such contingency.  Mr.  

Mukul  Rohatgi,  learned  senior  counsel  for  the  election  petitioner,

12

however,  heavily  relied  upon  certain  instructions  contained  in  the  

Handbook for Returning Officers (at elections where electronic voting  

machines are used) issued by the Election Commission of India in  

2009 (for short, ‘the Handbook’). He referred to paragraphs 4.14 and  

4.15 which deal with commissioning of machines, paragraph 6.1 that  

deals  with  preparation  of  ballot  unit  and  paragraphs  8.1  and  8.2  

which provide for masking of candidates’ buttons which are not to be  

used. Mr.  Mukul  Rohatgi  also      referred  to   a   decision   of  

Allahabad   High   Court   in   Madan Gopal v.  Nek Ram Sharma1  

underlying  philosophy of  law in  the  case of  death  of  a  contesting  

candidate before poll.  Learned senior counsel submitted that the law  

contemplates  living  person,  and  not  a  dead  person,  to  be  a  

contesting candidate and, therefore, it was obligatory on the part of  

the  returning  officer  to  erase  or  mask  the  name of  Akhila  Kumar  

Mohanta—an independent candidate—who died after the publication  

of  the list  of  the contesting candidates but  before poll  and whose  

death  was  notified  to  the  returning  officer  well  in  advance.   He  

submitted that the margin of difference of votes between the returned  

candidate and the election petitioner was only 145 votes and had 550  

votes not been cast in favour of the deceased candidate, the result of  

the election would have been otherwise.

1   25 ELR 61

13

19. We  are  unable  to  accept  the  submission  of  Mr.  

Mukul Rohatgi. In long line of cases beginning from 1952 this Court  

has stated time and  again that right to contest election or to question  

the election by means of the election petition is neither common law  

nor fundamental right.  Instead, it is a statutory right regulated by the  

statutory  provisions  contained  in  the  1951  Act.   The  1951  Act  is  

complete and self-contained code within which the  rights claimed in  

relation to an election or  election dispute must  be found.  It  is  not  

necessary to refer to all such decisions in this regard but reference to  

few of  them,  namely,  N.P.  Ponnuswami v.  The Returning Officer,   

Namakkal Constituency, Namakkal, Salem Dist.  and Others2, Jagan  

Nath  v.  Jaswant  Singh and Others3,  Jyoti  Basu & others v.  Debi  

Ghosal and Others4, Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal v. Rajiv Gandhi5  

and  Chandra  Kishore  Jha  v.  Mahavir  Prasad  and  Others6 shall  

suffice.

20. There is no doubt that only living persons can offer  

themselves  or  be  offered  as  candidates  for  membership  of  

Parliament  or  State  Legislatures.   However,  once  nomination  has  

been filed by a candidate and on scrutiny his candidature is found  

proper and before the expiry of  the period of the withdrawal, he has  2   AIR 1952 SC 64 3   AIR 1954 SC 210 4  (1982) 1 SCC 691 5  1987 (supp) SCC 93 6   (1999) 8 SCC 266

14

not withdrawn his candidature and his name is included in the list of  

validly nominated candidates prepared under Section 38 of the 1951  

Act  and  Rule  11  of  the  1961  Rules,  if   death  of  a  contesting  

candidate as defined in Section 38 takes place, the consequences  

following the death of such contesting candidate have to be found  

from  electoral  law  contained  in  1951  Act  or  the  rules  framed  

thereunder.   Section 52, after its substitution  by Act  21 of 1996,  

takes cognizance of a death of a candidate of the recognized political  

party  before poll and not the other two categories of the candidates  

classified  in  Section  38,  namely  (one)   candidates  of  registered  

political  parties  other  than  the  candidates  of  recognized  political  

parties  and  (two)  other  candidates  (which  includes  independent  

candidates).   Section  52  in  its  original  form  in  1951  Act  was  as  

follows:-  

“S.-52. Death of Candidate before poll. –  If a candidate  who has been duly nominated under this Act dies after the  date fixed for the scrutiny of nominations and a report of his  death  is  received  by  the  Returning  Officer  before  the  commencement of the poll, the Returning Officer shall, upon  being  satisfied  of  the  fact  of  the  death  of  the  candidate,  countermand  the  poll  and  report  the  fact  to  the  Election  Commission  and also to  the  appropriate  authority  and all  proceedings  with  reference  to  the  election  shall  be  commenced anew in all respects as if for a new election:  

Provided   that  no  further  nomination  shall  be  necessary in the case of a candidate whose nomination was  valid at the time of the countermanding of the poll :

15

Provided  further  that  no  person  who  has  under  sub-section (1) of Section 37 given a notice of withdrawal of  his candidature before the countermanding of the poll shall  be  ineligible  for  being  nominated  as  a  candidate  for  the  election after such countermanding”.  

21. According  to  the  original  provision  contained  in  

Section  52,  the  consequence  of  the  death  of  a  candidate  duly  

nominated after the scrutiny of nomination form was countermand of  

the poll. However, this provision was substituted by Act   2 of 1992.  

On substitution by Act 2 of 1992, Section 52 read as follows:     

“S.  52.  Death  of  candidate  before  the  poll.   -  If  a  candidate, set up by a recognised political party,-  

(a)  dies  at  any  time after  11  A.  M.  on  the  last  date  for  making nominations and his nomination is found valid on  scrutiny under section 36; or  

(b)whose  nomination  has  been  found  valid  on  scrutiny  under  section  36  and  who  has  not  withdrawn  his  candidature under section 37, dies, and in either case, a  report  of  his  death  is  received  at  any  time  before  the  publication of the list of contesting candidates under section  38; or  

( c)  dies as a contesting candidate and a report of his death  is  received  before  the  commencement  of  the  poll,  the  returning officer shall, upon being satisfied about the fact of  the death of the candidate, by order, countermand the poll  and report the fact to the Election Commission and also to  the appropriate authority and all proceedings with reference  to the election shall be commenced anew in all respects as  if for a new election:

Provided that no order for countermanding a poll  should be made in a case referred to in clause (a) except

16

after  the  scrutiny  of  all  the  nominations  including  the  nomination of the deceased candidate.  

Provided further that no further nomination shall be  necessary in the case of a person who was a contesting  candidate at the time of the countermanding of the poll:

Provided  also  that  no  person  who  has  given  a  notice of  withdrawal  of  his  candidature under sub-section  (1)   of Section 37 before the countermanding of the poll  shall  be ineligible for being nominated as a candidate for  the election after such countermanding.

Explanation.  –  For  the  purposes  of  this  section,  ‘recognised  political  party’  means  a  political  party  recognized by the Election Commission under the Election  Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968”.  

22. A significant  departure  was thus  made from the  

original Section 52 concerning the death of a candidate before the  

poll.  On death of a candidate set up by recognized political party,  

the consequence of countermand of the poll was provided in three  

situations set out therein namely; (a) a candidate dies  at any time  

after  11  a.m.  on  the  last  date  for  making  nominations  and  his  

nomination is found valid on scrutiny under Section 36; or  (b) a  

candidate  whose  nomination  has  been  found  valid  on  scrutiny  

under Section 36 and who has not withdrawn his candidature under  

Section 37, dies  and (c) a candidate dies  as contesting candidate  

before the commencement of the poll.  Section 52 substituted by  

Act  2  of  1992  provided  that  in  any  of  the  above  situations,  the

17

returning  officer  upon  being  satisfied  about  the  death  of  the  

candidate shall countermand the poll.    

23. Section 52 which was brought in the 1951 Act by  

Act  2  of  1992  was  further  substituted  by  Act  21  of  1996.   The  

substituted  Section 52 by Act 21 of 1996 has already been quoted  

above.  The provision in 1951 Act now existing takes cognizance of  

the death of  a candidate of  recognized political  party before poll  

only  in  three  situations  as  were  brought  by Act  2  of  1992.  The  

significant change brought in law by 1996 amendment is that the  

death of a candidate of a recognized political party before poll in  

three  situations  set  out  in  clauses  (a),  (b)  and  (c)  results  in  

adjournment  of  the  poll  to  a  date  to  be  notified  later  and  not  

countermand of  the poll.   Proviso that  follows sub-section (1)  of  

Section 52 provides that no order for adjourning poll shall be made  

in a case  if  a candidate set up by a recognized political party dies  

at any time after 11.00 a.m. on the last date for making nomination  

and  his  nomination  is  found  valid  on  scrutiny  under  Section  36  

except   after  the  scrutiny  of  all  the  nominations  including  the  

nomination  of the deceased candidate.  Sub-section (2) of Section  

52 provides that the Election Commission shall  on receipt  of  the  

report of the returning officer call upon the recognized political party  

to nominate another candidate  in place of the deceased candidate

18

for the said poll within seven days of  issue of such notice. Sections  

30  to  37  shall  apply  in  relation  to  such  nomination  as  far  as  

applicable.  According to sub-section (3) in a situation where list of  

contesting candidates had been published under Section 38 before  

the  adjournment  of  the  poll  under  sub-section  (1),  the  returning  

officer shall  again prepare and publish a fresh list  of   contesting  

candidates  under  that  section so as  to  include the  name of  the  

candidate who has been validly nominated under sub-section (2).  

Section  52  takes  care  of  the  situation  in  case  of  death  of   a  

candidate  of  recognized  political  party  before  poll.  However,  the  

electoral  law  as  enacted  in  1951  Act  does  not  contemplate  

cognizance  of  the  death  of  an  independent  candidate  after  

publication of list of contesting candidates in Section 38.  Section  

52 enjoins that if a candidate set up by recognized political party  

dies before the poll, the poll  must be adjourned; it does not provide  

any obligation on the returning officer if a candidate of a registered  

political  party  other  than  recognized  political  party  or   an  

independent  candidate  dies  after  the  list  of  the  contesting  

candidates as defined in Section 38  is published.  

24. We shall now consider the instructions   provided  

in the Handbook, particularly paragraphs 4.14, 4.15, 6.1. 8.1 and  

8.2 of Chapter XII relied upon by Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior

19

counsel for the election petitioner.   Chapter XII  of  the Handbook  

deals  with  preparation  for  the  poll,  particularly  commissioning  of  

EVMs.  Paragraphs 4.14, 4.15, 6.1, 8.1 and 8.2 read as follows:-    

“4.14.  Before  a  voting  machine  is  supplied  to  a  Presiding  Officer  for  use  at  a  polling  station,  some preparations,  as  detailed  below,  are  to  be  made in  it  at  your  level.  These  preparations  have  to  be  made  in  the  presence  of  the  candidates and/or their agents.

4.15  You  should  decide  well  in  advance as  to  when  the  voting  machines  shall  be  prepared  as  aforesaid.  This  will  depend on the number of machines to be prepared, the time  required for the movement of polling parties with the voting  machines to the polling stations, the time likely to be taken in  the printing of ballot papers for use on the ballot units and  such other factors. In any case, all required EVMs must be  duly prepared (i.e. commissioned) one week before the date  of poll in the Constituencies.

 6.1 Each ballot  unit has to be prepared at the Returning  Officer’s level by: -

(A) Inserting and fixing ballot paper in the space meant for  the purpose;

(B) Masking the candidate’s buttons which are not required to  be used, depending on the number of contesting candidates;

(C) Setting the slide switch at the appropriate position, i.e. , 1,  2, 3 or 4, as the case may be, according to the number of  such units which are to be used depending upon the number  of contesting candidates and the sequence in which each unit  is to be used, and

(D) Sealing the unit (detailed step-by-step operations during  sealing of EVM may be seen at Annexure XXX).

8.1 On the ballot unit, only those candidate’s buttons should  be visible which are to be used by voters. In other words, the  number of candidate’s buttons, which should be visible, will  be  equal  to  the  number  of  contesting  candidates.  For

20

example, if  the number of candidates is nine, the first nine  from the top (i.e., 1 to 9) candidates’ buttons should be visible  and the remaining seven buttons (i.e.,  10 to 16) should be  masked.

8.2 The masking of the unwanted buttons can be done by  moving the white masking tabs on to the candidate’s buttons,  when the ballot unit is open like a book as explained in Para  7 above”.

25. We do  not  think  paragraphs  4.14,  4.15  and  6.1  

have much relevance. Paragraphs 4.14 and 4.15 basically provide  

that requisite EVMs must be prepared one week before the poll in  

the Constituencies.  Each EVM has to be prepared at the returning  

officer’s  level  in  the  manner  provided  in  paragraph  6.1.   The  

emphasis of the learned counsel was on paragraph 8.1 which states  

that on ballot unit only those candidates’ buttons should be visible  

which are to be used by voters and remaining buttons should be  

masked.  A careful reading of paragraph 8.1 would show that the  

number of candidates’  buttons which should be visible should be  

equal  to  the number  of  contesting candidates  and the remaining  

buttons must be masked.  The expression “contesting candidates”  

in  paragraph  8.1  has  to  be  given  the  same  meaning  as  the  

contesting  candidates defined in Section 38 of 1951 Act. No other  

meaning to the expression “contesting candidates”  can be given.  

In other words,  the number of candidates’ buttons which should be

21

visible on  EVM should be equal to the number of  candidates as  

published in the list of validly nominated candidates who have not  

withdrawn the candidature within the period prescribed and whose  

nominations are included in the list published under Section 38.  In  

this view of the matter, there was no duty imposed on the returning  

officer to mask the name of the candidate at Sl. no. 9, Akhila Kumar  

Mohanta, who was an independent candidate and who died on April  

13,  2009  after  publication  of  list  of  validly  nominated  candidates  

being a contesting candidate as defined in Section 38. Moreover,  

the  instructions  in  the  Handbook  are  only  guidelines.   These  

instructions have no statutory force.    In a recent decision of this  

Court in  Ramesh Rout vs. Rabindra Nath Rout7 one of us (R.M.  

Lodha, J.) speaking for the Bench observed as follows:  

“14. . . . . . The handbook, as it states, has been designed to  give to the Returning Officers the information and guidance  which  they  may  need  in  performance  of  their  functions;  to  acquaint them with up-to-date rules and procedures prescribed  for  the  conduct  of  elections  and to  ensure that  there  is  no  scope  for  complaint  of  partiality  on  the  part  of  any  official  involved in  the election  management.  We shall  refer  to  the  relevant  provisions  of  the  handbook  a  little  later.  The  handbook  does  not  have  statutory  character  and  is  in  the  nature of guidance to the Returning Officers”.

26. In  view  of  the  above  legal  position  that  the  

Handbook does not have statutory character and there being   no  

7       2012 (1) SCC 762

22

non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or the 1951  

Act  or  any  rules  framed  or  orders  made  under  1951  Act  by  the  

returning officer insofar as death of  an independent candidate was  

concerned,  the averments made in paragraph 7(A) of the election  

petition do not furnish any cause of action for declaring the election of  

the returned candidate to be void under Section 100(1)(d)(iv).  The  

High Court seriously erred in holding otherwise and ordering  trial of  

the election petition on the pleadings set out in paragraph 7(A).

27. The next  question remains to be seen is whether  

the  pleadings  in  paragraph  7(D)  set  out  the  material  facts   to  

constitute cause of action under Section 100 (1)(d)(iii) and/or (iv) of  

1951 Act.  

28. Paragraph  7(D)  of  the  election  petition  read  as  

under:  

“7(D).   The  petitioner  further  gives  a  concise  statement  of  material  fact  exposing  a  glaring  instance  of  illegality  deliberately  committed  by  the  counting  personnels  while  recording the counting figure in Form-20 with respect to Booth  No. 179, Urdu Madrasa Champua Alinagar Booth. The total  number of voters as recorded in the Electoral Roll with respect  to  Booth  No.  179  is  1109.  Whereas in  Form-17C,  certified  copy,  deliberately  this  figure  has  been  shown  wrongly  as  1091. On the date of polling on a plain perusal of Register of  Voters maintained in Form-17A, it will be abundantly clear that  the  total  number  of  voters  came  to  vote  and  signed  17-A  Register is 1091 whereas in Form-17C certified copy, it  has  been  deliberately  shown  as  772  making  a  deliberate  suppression  of  319  votes.  According  to  the  information  received by the Election petitioner from his counting agents in  Booth Number 179, the Election petitioner has received 462

23

(Four hundred sixty two) votes.  The said 462 votes are to be  added to the total vote of the petitioner as stated in preceeding  paragraph.   Thus,  the  petitioner  has  received  in  total  27410+73+462+02  (postal  Ballots)  =  27,947  and  the  first  respondent  having received = 27700,  the Election petitioner  has received 247 (Two hundred forty seven) more votes than  the First respondent and is entitled to be declared elected as  M.L.A. from “25-CHAMPUA” Assembly Constituency to Orissa  State Legislative Assembly”.  

29. Mr.  Mukul  Rohatgi,  learned senior  counsel  for  the  

election  petitioner  submitted  that  the  above  pleadings  are  in  two  

parts.  The first part relates to suppression of 319 votes.  This part  

begins  with  the  start  of  paragraph  7(D)  and   ends  with  ‘…….

suppression of 319 votes’. The second part relates to addition of 462  

votes which is remaining part  of  paragraph 7(D).  He would submit  

that all material facts concerning deliberate suppression of 319 votes  

have  been  pleaded  in  paragraph  7(D)  and  these  facts  constitute  

cause of action for declaring the election of the returned candidate to  

be void.  

30. Order VI Rule 2 of CPC, to the extent it is relevant,  

reads as under :

“O.  VI  Rule  2.  Pleading  to  state  material  facts  and  not  evidence.— (1)  Every pleading shall contain, and contain only,  a statement in a concise form of the material facts on which the  party pleading relies for his claim or defence as the case may  be, but not the evidence by which they are to be proved.

(2) xxx xxx xxx

24

(3) xxx xxx xxx”

31. Section 83(1)(a) of the 1951 Act  is as follows :  

“S. 83. Contents of petition.—(1) An election petition—

(a) shall contain a concise statement of the material facts  on which the petitioner relies;”

32. A bare perusal of the above provisions would show  

that the first part of Order VI Rule 2, CPC is similar to clause 1(a) of  

Section 83 of the 1951 Act. It is imperative for an election petition to  

contain  a  concise  statement  of  the  material  facts  on  which  the  

election petitioner relies.  What are   material facts?  All basic and  

primary facts which must be proved at the trial by a party to establish  

the existence of cause of action or defence are material facts. The  

bare  allegations  are  never  treated  as  material  facts.  The material  

facts are such facts which afford a basis for the allegations made in  

the  election  petition.  The  meaning  of  'material  facts’  has  been  

explained  by  this  Court  on  more  than  one  occasion.   Without  

multiplying the authorities, reference to one of the later decisions of  

this Court in Virender Nath Gautam v. Satpal Singh and others8 shall  

suffice.

33. In Virender Nath Gautam8, this Court referred to the  

8       2007 (3) SCC 617

25

leading case of Philipps v.  Philipps and Others9 and the subsequent  

decision in Bruce v. Odhams Press Limited10 that referred to Philipps9   

and observed in paragraphs 34 and 35 (Pg. 629) of the Report as  

follows:

“34. A distinction between “material facts” and “particulars”,  however,  must  not  be  overlooked.  “Material  facts”  are  primary or basic facts which must be pleaded by the plaintiff  or  by the defendant  in support  of  the case set  up by him  either to prove his cause of action or defence. “Particulars”,  on the other  hand,  are details  in  support  of  material  facts  pleaded  by  the  party.  They  amplify,  refine  and  embellish  material facts by giving distinctive touch to the basic contours  of a picture already drawn so as to make it full, more clear  and more informative.  “Particulars”  thus ensure conduct of  fair trial and would not take the opposite party by surprise.

35. All  “material  facts”  must  be  pleaded  by  the  party  in  support  of  the  case  set  up  by  him.  Since  the  object  and  purpose is to enable the opposite party to know the case he  has to meet with, in the absence of pleading, a party cannot  be allowed to lead evidence. Failure to state even a single  material  fact,  hence,  will  entail  dismissal  of  the  suit  or  petition. Particulars, on the other hand, are the details of the  case which  is  in  the nature of  evidence a party  would  be  leading at the time of trial.”

34.  Whether  the  averments   in  the  election  petition  

constitute material facts or not would depend upon facts of each case.  

As  stated   by  this  Court  in  Virender  Nath  Gautam8,   no  rule  of  

universal  application  can  be  applied  in  finding  out  whether  the  

statements of  fact  made in the election petition amount to material  

9      (1878) 4 Q.B.D. 127 10      (1936) 1 K.B. 697

26

facts or not. It is, therefore, necessary to consider the pleadings with  

regard to suppression of 319 votes in paragraph 7(D) of the election  

petition.  

35. A close analysis of first part of paragraph 7(D) of the  

election  petition  would show that  the statements  comprise of  the  

following facts :

• Illegality  deliberately  committed  by  the  counting  personnels  while  recording  the  counting  figure  in  Form-20 with respect to Booth No. 179.

• The  total  number  of  voters  as  recorded  in  the  electoral roll with respect to Booth No. 179 is 1109.

• Whereas  in  Form-17C,  certified  copy,  deliberately  this figure has been shown wrongly as 1091.

• On the date of polling, on a plain perusal of register  of  voters  maintained  in  Form-17A,  it  will  be  abundantly  clear  that  the  total  number  of  voters  came to vote and signed   17-A register is 1091;  whereas  in  Form-17C,  it  has  been  deliberately  shown as 772 making a deliberate suppression of  319 votes.

36. Before  we  discuss  the  above  pleadings  further,  it  

may be stated immediately that register of voters in Form-17A is not  

available for inspection. Rule 93 of the 1961 Rules provides for the  

production and inspection  of  election  papers.  Clause (dd)  of  Rule  

93(1) makes a provision that the packets containing register of voters  

in Form 17A, while in the custody of the district election officer or the

27

returning officer, as the case may be, shall not be opened and their  

contents shall not be inspected by, or produced before, any person or  

authority except under the order of a competent court.

37. We  now  revert  back  to  the  pleadings  set  out  in  

paragraph 7(D) as analysed above. There is no averment that the  

election  petitioner  or  any  of  his  polling  agents  had  perused  the  

register  of  voters  maintained  in  Form  17A.  The   basis  of  the  

knowledge that the register of voters maintained in Form 17A records  

that 1091 voters came to vote is not disclosed at all.  Moreover, there  

is no pleading that 1091 voters who came to vote at Booth No. 179 in  

fact voted. There is no merit in the contention of Mr. Mukul Rohatgi  

that the facts stated in paragraph 7(D) with regard to Form 17A shall  

be established at the trial after Form 17A is summoned by the Court.  

We are afraid  such fanciful imagination of proof at the trial cannot be  

a substitute of the pleading of material facts about the total number of  

voters who came to vote and in fact voted at Booth No. 179.

38. The  averment  that  in  Form-17C,  certified  copy,  it  

has been deliberately shown as 772 making a deliberate suppression  

of  319 votes hardly improves the pleading in the election petition.  

There  is  no  averment  that  the  election  petitioner  or  his  agents  

challenged part II of Form-17C before authorities.  At least, there are  

no facts pleaded concerning that.  There  is  no  pleading  that

28

there was any challenge by the election petitioner or his agents in  

respect of the counting figure in Form-20. The only pleading is that  

the  illegality  has  been  deliberately  committed  by  the  counting  

personnels  while  recording  the  counting  figure  in  Form-20  with  

respect to Booth No. 179. There is, thus, no disclosure of material  

facts in respect of the challenge to the correctness of Form-20 and  

Form-17C.

39. The  pleading  of  material  facts  with  regard  to  

suppression of 319 votes in paragraph 7(D) is also incomplete as it  

has not  been disclosed who suppressed 319 votes;  who was  the  

counting agent present on behalf of the election petitioner at the time  

of counting; how 319 votes were suppressed and why recounting was  

not demanded. Moreover, there is no express pleading as to how the  

result  of the election has been materially affected by less counting of  

319 votes.

40. In  Samant  N.  Balkrishna  and  Another v.  George  

Fernandez and Others11 while  dealing  with  the  requirement  in  an  

election  petition  as  to  the  statement  of  material  facts  and  the  

consequences  of  lack  of  such  disclosure,   this  Court,  inter  alia,  

exposited the legal position that omission of even a single material  

fact leads to an incomplete cause of action and statement of claim  

11     1969 (3) SCC 238

29

becomes bad.

41. The  other  part  of  paragraph  7(D)  relating  to  462  

votes  is  based  on  the  preceding  paragraph.   The  preceding  

paragraph i.e.,   7(C)   has been already struck out by the High Court.  

Therefore, the pleadings in paragraph 7(D) in respect of 462 votes do  

not survive as it is.   

42.  In  view  of  the  above,  we  have  no  hesitation  in  

holding that the averments made in  paragraph 7(D) do not set out all  

the   material  facts  and  do  not  afford  an  adequate  basis  for  the  

allegations made therein. The allegations in paragraph 7(D) for the  

reasons noted above do not constitute cause of action for declaring  

election of the returned candidate to be void.

43. The High Court has already struck out paragraphs  

7(B), 7(C), 7(E), 7(F) and 7(G). The remaining two paragraphs 7(A)  

and 7(D), as noted above, do not disclose any cause of action and  

are liable to  be struck out.  After  striking out  paragraphs 7(A)  and  

7(D), we find that nothing remains in the election petition for trial and,  

therefore, election petition is liable to be rejected in its entirety.

44. In the circumstances, the appeal has to be allowed  

and is allowed. We do so without any order as to costs.

30

…………………….J.             (R.M. Lodha)

            ….………....…….. J.               (H. L. Gokhale)  

NEW DELHI. MARCH  2, 2012.