Contents of an election petition

2017 SCMR 292 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 55, 78 & 79Contents of election petitionCorrupt practicesProofLack of particular details of corrupt practicesVague, generalized and non-specific allegationsEffect

Election petition read with the statements of witnesses did not fulfil the mandatory requirements of S. 55 of Representation of the People Act, 1976, in so far as it failed to give detailed and complete particulars of the alleged corrupt or illegal practices or other illegal acts alleged to have been committed by the returned candidate

Further, a full statement of the names of the persons accused of corrupt or illegal practices or illegal acts and the date and place of commission of such acts or practices were not available on record

Affidavits of all 10 witnesses of the petitioner were almost completely identical, in that only the names of the deponents varied between them

Sequence of events at nine different polling stations being exactly the same, down to the small details, was not a tenable fact

Petitioner did not produce any elector/voter who may have been harassed, intimidated or bribed by the returned candidate as alleged in the petition

No independent evidence of any nature, documentary or otherwise, was produced to substantiate the allegation that returned candidate provided transportation facilities throughout his constituency to bring voters to the polling stations and take them back

No transporter was summoned or examined, nor were their particulars or those of the vehicles allegedly used by them furnished at any stage

To substantiate allegations of connivance and bias on part of election staff not a single member of the election staff, including the Polling Officer or Returning Officer, was summoned or put in the witness stand

Documentary evidence, which could have helped to substantiate the allegations of violation of election laws in counting of votes and compilation of result, made in the election petition, was conspicuously absent

Allegations made in the election petition were vague, generalized and non-specific, and did not meet the requirements specified in S. 55 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976

Election petition had been rightly dismissed by the Election Tribunal

Appeal was dismissed accordingly with the observation that in a democratic state, free, fair and transparent elections were sine qua non for the success of the system; that the will of the electorate had to be respected and unless there was irrefutable evidence to show that the election was systematically rigged by a candidate through the use of illegal or corrupt practices, the will of the people could not and should not be interfered with.

2014 CLC 293 ELECTION-TRIBUNAL-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 54, 55 & 63Dismissal of election petition during trialContents of an election petitionPurpose of S.55 of Representation of the People Act, 1976

Purpose of disposal of election disputes in a speedy manner in accordance with the law provided in Representation of the People Act, 1976 was only to allow the true elected representatives to invest their energy and time in the legislative business for the welfare of the people of their constituencies instead of wasting time in protracted litigation

For such purpose S.63 of Representation of the People Act, 1976 provided that if an election petition did not fulfil provisions of Ss.54 & 55 of the same Act, such petition must be thrown out (without going into the process of regular trial) and it was the responsibility of the Election Tribunal to dispose of such petitions to ensure their compliance in letter and spirit so that a sword might not remain hanging over the heads of true representatives unnecessarily without point or purpose

Legislature had enacted S.55 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 with the sole purpose to safeguard the interest of the People in their truly elected representatives from unscrupulous litigation by making it incumbent upon an election petitioner to provide all the details, as far as possible, with regard to the illegal practices or acts allegedly committed by the returned candidate or his workers or agents and also the place and time of commission of such practices and acts and to verify such allegations on oath in order to take responsibility of penal consequences in case the allegations were found false

Such requirement of verification on oath also applied to those documents which were annexed with the election petition and disclosed further allegations with regard to corrupt or illegal practices or such acts which were either separate or in addition to the allegations made in the petition or complemented them

Such verification on oath was to ensure that election of a returned candidate might not be challenged in a cursory manner, without taking responsibility of making false allegations as provided in S.55(1)(b) & (3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976.