Court dismisses election petitions against Congress candidate from Hisar

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed two election petitions challenging the election of Indian National Congress candidate Jai Parkash Saharan from the Hisar parliamentary constituency. Among other things, Justice Anoop Chitkara ruled the petitioners, claiming to be Haryana ministers, failed to establish status as a voter in the Hisar parliamentary constituency and their name did not appear in the contesting candidate list.

Advertisement

“The petitioner did not prima facie establish his locus; the petition lacks essential pleadings and petition is defective, and the cause of action is absent”, Justice Chitkara asserted, adding that an election petition could be rejected at the threshold if it suffered from any vice.

The petitioners had approached the court seeking the nullification of the election results declared on June 4, 2024, alleging corrupt practices by the elected representative. He further sought a direction for fresh election and disqualification of the elected MP under Section 8A of the Representation of People Act, 1951.

Claiming to be a Cabinet minister in the Haryana Government, one of the petitioners claimed that he contested the election as the BJP candidate from Hisar parliamentary constituency. As such, he was qualified under the provisions of the Representation of People Act to file the election petition, but the list of contesting candidates in the petition identified Ranjit Singh as the BJP candidate from the Hisar constituency.

Addressing this discrepancy, Justice Chitkara observed: “There is neither any averment nor any evidence of nomination, and it is also prima facie disproved by the list of contesting candidates, where the petitioner’s name is not mentioned.” 

The court further noted that the petitioner failed to establish his status as a voter in the Hisar constituency. “There is also no evidence that he is a voter of the Hisar parliamentary constituency, the election he has challenged in this election petition. The voter card is not attached, and no particulars have been provided. He does not claim to be a voter of the constituency or even Haryana. There is no prima facie evidence that the petitioner is a voter of the Hisar constituency.” 

Referring to the statutory requirements under the Representation of People Act, the court asserted failure to plead even a single material fact would render an election petition defective. “All the facts essential to clothe the petition with complete cause of action must be pleaded, and failure to plead even a single material fact would amount to disobedience of the mandate of Section 83(1)(a),” the court asserted. 

Justice Chitkara reiterated that material facts formed the foundation of an election petition and their omission led to an incomplete cause of action. “The omission of material facts leads to an incomplete cause of action, and an election petition without the material facts is not an election petition at all. The pleadings and the attached documents lack material particulars and violate mandatory legal requirements.” 

Justice Chitkara added that the courts were duty-bound to examine election petitions at the initial stage to ensure compliance with statutory provisions. Pointing at the legal mandate, the court asserted: “At the initial stage, the designated court is under an obligation to screen the mandate of Sections 81, 82, and 86 of the RP Act and must reject a plaint if it does not disclose any cause of action. Since the court must act at the threshold, this power must be exercised at the earliest stage.”