Page 1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.8063  of 2015 (@ SLP(C) NO. 15813 OF 2015)

Pukhrem Sharatchandra Singh ... Appellant

                               Versus

Mairembam Prithviraj @ Prithibiraj Singh ... Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Dipak Misra, J.

What ordinarily would have entailed dismissal of the

special  leave petition treating it  with loathe,  regard being

had to the nature of the order passed by the learned Single

Judge in Misc. Case (E.P) No. 1 of 2012 in Election Petition

No. 1 of 2012 as he had only adjourned the matter, but the

chronology of events, the ultimate consequence that would

emerge  by  efflux  of  time,  the  command  of  the  provision

contained  in  Section  86(7)  of  the  Representation  of  the

People Act, 1951 (for brevity, “the Act”),  every conceivable

Page 2

stand adopted in a dexterous manner by the respondent,

the  elected  candidate,  harbouring  the  notion  that  he

singularly has the intellectual imperialism, which has the

effect potentiality to frustrate and defeat the election trial,

for the High Court has not even been able to frame issues

lest proceed with the trial, has impelled us to interfere and

write a verdict.  It needs no special emphasis to state that

causation  of  delay  in  the  conclusion  of  the  trial  of  an

election  petition  leaves  an  impression  that  the  elected

candidate has the skilfulness to enjoy his full term without

being  concerned  or  bothered  about  the  challenge  to  his

election.  As it appears, he does not perceive the pendency

as hanging of the sword of Damocles or even if it is so, he

believes that by his hypnotic power he can make it hang in

the  air  so  that  the  threat  becomes  totally  non-existent.

Either way, it depicts a sad state of things.  

2. The  necessary  facts.   The  appellant,  a  resident  of

Phairembam Leikai, Morang located within the 27-Moirang

Assembly Constituency of Bishnupur District, Manipur, was

a  candidate  in  the  10th Manipur  Legislative  Assembly

Election from he said Constituency.   The election for the

2

Page 3

Manipur Legislative Assembly was held on 28.01.2012 and

the  appellant  contested  as  a  candidate  from  the

aforementioned  constituency  being  nominated  by  the

Nationalist  Congress  Party  (“NCP”  for  short).   The

respondent  became  successful  in  the  election  and  was

declared as a member of the Manipur Legislative Assembly.

It  is  apt  to  note  here  that  at  the  time  of  scrutiny,  the

appellant had objected to the nomination of the respondent

as per Section 36(2) of the Act on the ground that he had

failed to file the proper affidavit as prescribed under Article

173  of  the  Constitution  and  further  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 is  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

3

Page 4

votes took place and the respondent was declared as the

elected candidate.

3. The appellant challenged the election before the High

Court  of  Manipur at  Imphal  in  Election Petition No.  1 of

2012.   As  the  factual  narration  would  unveil,  the

respondent filed the written statement after two years to the

main  election  petition  and  during  the  pendency  of  the

election  petition,  the  returned  candidate  filed  number  of

miscellaneous applications.  It  is pertinent to refer to the

said  applications,  as  Mr.  N.  Kumarjit,  learned  senior

counsel for the appellant has laid immense emphasis them.

We think it  appropriate,  for  the  sake of  completeness,  to

reproduce the same:-

“1. Misc. Case (EP) No.1 of 2012 as preliminary objection  on  the  ground  of  maintainability  of Election  Petition  No.  1  of  2012  –  filed  on 27-06-2012 and the same is pending.

2. Misc.  Case (EP)  No. 4 of  2012 for amend- ment of his application in Misc. Case (EP) No. 1 of  2012.  The  same  is  partly  allowed  on 06-02-2013.

3. Misc. Case (EP) No.1  of 2013 for impleading the Returning Officer of the election and the same is rejected on15-04-2014.

4

Page 5

4. Misc. Case (EP) No. 5 of 2014 filed by the re- spondent for amendment of application in Misc. Case  (EP)  No.  4  of  2014  was  also  allowed  on 14-05-2014.

5. Misc. Case (EP) No. 4 of 2014 filed by the re- spondent  for  condoning  the  delay  in  filing  the written statement was allowed on 02-06-2014.

6. On 02-06-2014 filed another misc. applica- tion i.e.  Misc.  Case (EP) No.  6 of  2014 for dis- missing the Election Petition taking the ground that the Challan Copy for depositing cost under section 117 of the RP Act, 1951 is not signed by the petitioner.  The same is pending.

7. Misc. Case (EP) No. 8 of 2014 filed for con- donation of delay in filing the misc. application again for amendment of the misc. application in Misc.  Case  (EP)  No.  1  of  2012 was allowed on 09-09-2014.

8. Misc.  Case  (EP)  No.  9  of  2014  filed  for amendment of the Misc. Application  third time in Misc. Case (EP) No. 1 of 2012 was allowed on 09-09-2014.

9. Misc.  Case  (EP)  No.  10  of  2014  filed  for dismissal of the election petition on the ground that  election  petition  is  incomplete  was withdrawn on 05-11-2014.

10. On  14-01-2015  filed  another  misc. application i.e. Misc. Case (EP) No. 1 of 2015 for dismissal of the election petition stating that no cause  of  action  is  disclosed.   The  same  is pending.”

4. At this juncture, it is relevant to mention that the High

Court while dealing with M.C. No. 4 of 2012 whereby the

5

Page 6

respondent  had  sought  amendment  to  his  preliminary

objection pertaining  to  the  maintainability  of  the  election

petition had allowed the amendment except  the proposed

amendment in respect of paragraph 5(F).  Against the said

order, the respondent preferred an appeal by special leave

i.e. Civil Appeal No. 10599 of 2013.  This Court recorded the

original stand and the amended one and came to hold as

follows:-

“We  have  considered  the  entire  issue.   In  our opinion,  the  aforesaid  amendment  would  in  no manner change the nature of the plea taken by the appellant.  Reading of the entire paragraph 5 of the MC (PE) 1 of 2012 clearly shows that the appellant has claimed that the Election Petition is not signed by the election petitioner/respondent herein.   We,  therefore,  find  merit  in  the submission made by Mr. Jaideep Gupta that the aforesaid amendment also has to be allowed in the interest of justice.

Consequently, the appeal is allowed.  The order of the  High  Court  is  modified  to  the  effect  that paragraph ‘F’ can also be amended, as proposed by the appellant.”

5. The  said  order  was  passed  on  19.11.2013.   It  is

asserted in the memorandum of appeal that the respondent

filed  Misc.  Case  E.P.  No.  1  of  2013  for  impleading  the

6

Page 7

Returning  Officer  as  respondent  no.2  and  the  said

application has not been disposed of  and the matter was

adjourned on many an occasion.  This situation compelled

the election petitioner to file Misc. Case E.P. No. 2 of 2013

dated  11.12.2013  to  hear  the  case  on  day  to  day  basis.

Eventually  on  3.4.2014,  the  respondent  filed  the  written

statement.   

6. As the case was not being taken up, as averred, the

appellant filed an application forming the subject matter of

Misc.  Case  E.P.  No.  7  of  2014 to  dispose  of  the  election

petition on a preliminary issue on the foundation that the

respondent had filed a false affidavit while submitting his

nomination papers which was evincible from the admission

made in the written statement.  The matter was adjourned

from time to time.  Hence, the present appeal, by special

leave, has been filed challenging the manner in which it is

conducted and the dilatory tactics ingeniously adopted by

the respondent to procrastinate the hearing of the election

petition.  

7. When the matter was listed on the first occasion, we

had issued notice fixing a returnable date.  Despite service

7

Page 8

of notice, no one has entered appearance on behalf of the

respondent.   

8. It is interesting to note that the election petition was

taken up by  the  High Court  on 24.8.2015.   The learned

Single Judge on that date has passed the following order:-

“When the matter has been put up for  hearing today,  it  has  been  submitted  by  Mr.  Iswarlal, learned  counsel  for  the  respondent  that  the respondents have filed an SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court being S.L.P. No. 15813/2015 and the  Hon’ble  Supreme  Court  has  fixed  on 23.09.2015  for  hearing  and  prays  that  the matters  be  taken up after  disposal  of  the  said SLP.

Mr. N. Kumarjit,  learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that since no stay order has been passed there is no impediment on the part of  this  Court  to  proceed  with  the  Election Petition.  However, Mr. Kumarjit, learned senior counsel  seeks  some  time  to  take  necessary instruction in this regard.  List these matters on 09.09.2015 as prayed by the parties.”

9. We  have  reproduced  the  said  order  only  to  indicate

that  the adjournment was sought by the respondent and

not by the election petitioner.   The adroit  effort  to  cause

delay  is  absolutely  manifest.    It  is  submitted by  Mr.  N.

Kumarjit,  learned  senior  counsel  for  the  appellant  that

despite the statutory provision contained in Section 86(7) of

8

Page 9

the  Act  that  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,

the same has not been kept in view and the respondent has

been  successful  in  getting  the  matter  adjourned  on

numerous  occasions  by  filing  variety  of  applications.

Learned  senior  counsel  would  further  submit  that  the

respondent chose not to file the written statement for two

years and the intention is to see that the term is over.  He

has  also  apprised  this  Court  that  issues  have  not  been

framed.  

10. Section 86(7) of the Act reads as follows:-

“86. Trial of election petitions – (1-6) xxxxx

(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.”

11. While dealing with the role of  Election Tribunal and

the  conception  of  disposal  of  a  challenge  to  election,  a

9

Page 10

three-Judge Bench in  Satya Narain v. Dhuja Ram1 has

observed that:-

“Keeping in the forefront the proper functioning of  democracy, the principal  object of  the Act is purity of elections. When, therefore, an election of a returned candidate is challenged under the Act, expeditious trial of the election dispute is sought to be enforced by the Legislature making all safe- guards against delay. Trial has to be necessarily expedited to rid the candidate as well as the con- stituency interested in the result of the election, of  any  taint  or  suspicion  of  corrupt  practices which are again clearly enumerated in the Act. To take,  therefore,  another important object of  the Act viz. expeditious disposal of an election peti- tion, by Section 86(b) “the trial of an election peti- tion  shall,  so  far  as  is  practicable  consistently with the interests of justice in respect of the trial, be continued from day to day until its conclusion, unless the High Court finds the adjournment of the trial beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded”. Again under Section 86(7), “every election petition shall be tried as ex- peditiously  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”.  Further Section 87(1) introduces the Civil Procedure Code only subject to the provisions of the Act and of any rules made thereunder. Section 87(2) makes a  deeming  provision for  application  of  the  Evi- dence  Act  only  subject  to  the  Acts.  Therefore, there is no scope for free play in the application of the provisions of those two Acts.  The very ob- ject of expeditious trial will be defeated if the pre- sentation  of  the  election  petition  should  be treated casually and lightly permitting all kinds of devices to delay the ultimate trial. The purpose

1  (1974) 4 SCC 237

10

Page 11

of enclosing the copies of the election petition for all the respondents is to enable quick despatch of the notice with the contents of the allegations for service on the respondent or respondents so that there is no delay in the trial at this very initial stage when the election petition is presented. If there is any halt or arrest in progress of the case, the object of the Act will be completely frustrated. We are, therefore, clearly of opinion that the first part of  Section 81(3) with which we are mainly concerned in this appeal is a peremptory provi- sion and total non-compliance with the same will entail  dismissal  of  the  election  petition  under Section 86 of the Act.”

[Emphasis supplied]

12. In  P.  Nalla Thampy Thera v.  B.L.  Shanker2,  this

Court  while  dealing  with the  justification of  granting one

adjournment opined as follows:-

“The High Court was justified in giving only one adjournment as a last chance and fixing the trial on 9-3-1981,  in  view of  the  statutory  mandate that an election petition shall be disposed of as far  as  practicable  within  six  months  from  the date of presentation of the election petition as re- quired by Section 86(7) of the Act.”

13. In F.A. Sapa v. Singora3, another three-Judge Bench,

in  a  different  context  stated  that  if  the  vexatious

applications are entertained, it would defeat the very object

of expeditious disposal of election petition as envisaged in

Section 86(7) of the Act.  

2  (1984) Supp. SCC 631 3  (1991) 3 SCC 375

11

Page 12

14. From the aforesaid authorities, it is quite clear 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.  

15. In the case at  hand,  as we have stated,  the elected

candidate  has been taking time at  his  own pleasure and

leisure and filing applications as he desired giving vent to

his whim and fancy and the Court has granted adjournment

in  an  extremely  liberal  manner.   All  the  aspects  can  be

taken  exception  to  and  they  really  run  counter  to  the

conception of expeditious disposal

16. At this juncture, we may state without any hesitation

that the fundamental purpose for expeditious disposal of an

election petition is  to sustain the purity  of  parliamentary

democracy.  The concept of purity of democracy has been

12

Page 13

emphatically stated in Rameshwar Prasad and others v.

Union of India and another4.

17. Recently,  in  Manoj  Narula  v.  Union  of  India5,

majority view in the Constitution Bench is to the following

effect:-

“Democracy, which has been best defined as the government of the people, by the people and for the people, expects prevalence of genuine orderli- ness, positive propriety, dedicated discipline and sanguine sanctity by constant affirmance of con- stitutional  morality  which is  the  pillar  stone of good governance. While dealing with the concept of  democracy,  the  majority  in  Indira  Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain6, stated that “democracy” as an essential feature of the Constitution is unas- sailable. The said principle was reiterated in T.N. Seshan,  CEC  of  India v.  Union  of  India7 and Kuldip  Nayar v.  Union  of  India8.  It  was  pro- nounced with asseveration that democracy is the basic and fundamental structure of the Constitu- tion. There is no shadow of doubt that democracy in India is a product of the rule of law and as- pires to establish an egalitarian social order. It is not only a political philosophy but also an em- bodiment of constitutional philosophy.”

18. In  Mohinder  Singh  Gill  v.  Chief  Election

Commissioner9,  while  laying  emphasis  on  fundamental

values of democracy which includes holding of free and fair

4  (2006) 2 SCC 1 5  (2014) 9 SCC 1 6  1975 Supp SCC 1 7  (1995) 4 SCC 611 8  (2006) 7 SCC 1 9  (1978) 1 SCC 405

13

Page 14

election by adult franchise in a periodical manner, Krishna

Iyer, J. quoted the statement of Sir Winston Churchill which

is to the following effect:-

“2. … ‘At the bottom of all tributes paid to democ- racy is the little man, walking into a little booth, with a little pencil, making a little cross on a little bit  of  paper—no amount  of  rhetoric  or  volumi- nous discussion can possibly diminish the over- whelming importance of the point.’”

19. 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.

20. We  are  absolutely  conscious  that  in  this  case  the

election  petitioner  has  also  filed  an  application  for  early

determination of the preliminary objection.  The respondent,

the elected candidate, has filed series of applications.  We

are  of  the  convinced  opinion  that  the  election  petition

14

Page 15

pending  before  the  High  Court  has  to  be  decided  with

extreme alertness and in quite promptitude.  As the court

has  not  framed  issues,  it  shall  proceed  to  frame  issues.

Thereafter,  the  evidence  shall  commence  and  the  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.   All  the  miscellaneous

applications shall be decided at the time of final hearing so

that the procrastination is totally ostracised.   

21. With  the  aforesaid  observations  and  directions,  the

appeal stands disposed of.  There shall be no order as to

costs.  

.............................J. [Dipak Misra]

..........................., J.     [Prafulla C. Pant]

New Delhi October 01, 2015

15