Holding

Defects in verification or affidavit are curable and do not justify dismissal; vague allegations do not defeat maintainability if other corrupt practices are pleaded with material facts; filing a recrimination petition is not an admission; the preliminary objection test requires that relief be possible if allegations are proved; the recount issue is to be decided on evidence.

Summary

The appellant G. Puttaswamy was declared elected after a recount ordered by the Returning Officer, which the respondent H.D. Revanna challenged, alleging that the recount violated Rule 63 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 and that the appellant committed corrupt practices under Sections 100 and 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The appellant sought dismissal of the election petition on grounds of defects in the verification and affidavit (non‑conformity with Rule 94‑A/Form 25), vagueness of the corrupt‑practice allegations and the filing of a recrimination petition. The High Court rejected these applications and upheld the petition. The Supreme Court held that defects in verification or affidavit are curable and do not warrant dismissal, that an election petition is not dismissed for vague allegations if other corrupt practices are pleaded with material facts, that a preliminary objection is decided by the test of whether relief could be granted if the allegations are proved, and that filing a recrimination petition does not amount to an admission of the allegations. The question of the legality of the recount is to be decided on evidence at trial. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether non‑compliance with verification and affidavit requirements (Rule 94‑A/Form 25) renders an election petition dismissible in limine.
Whether allegations of corrupt practices are too vague or lack material facts/particulars to sustain the petition.
Whether the filing of a recrimination petition amounts to an admission of the allegations in the election petition.
Whether the preliminary objection test requires that relief be possible if the petitioner's allegations are proved true.
Whether the order of recount under Rule 63 is valid and whether it should be decided at the trial stage.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order 6 Rule 16, s. Order 7 Rule 11
Conduct of Election Rules, 1961s. Rule 63, s. Rule 94-A
Representation of the People Act, 1951s. 100(1)(b)(d)(iv), s. 117, s. 123(2), s. 123(7)(1), s. 123(8), s. 81, s. 82, s. 83, s. 86

Subjects

election petitionverification defectaffidavit non‑compliancecorrupt practicesmaterial factsparticularspreliminary objectionrecountRepresentation of the People ActConduct of Election Rules

Judgment

A H.D. REVANNA
+-..
v.
G. PUTTASWAMY AND ORS.

JANUARY 21, 1999

B (M. SRINIVASAN AND U.C. BANERJEE, JJ.)
·,,
-I
Election Law :

Representation of the People Act, 1951 : Sections 81, 82, 83, 86 and
117.
c
Election petition---Affidavit-fn support'of-Defects in-Maintainability
of-'-Effect on--Held: Although neither the verification of the election petition
nor the supporting affidavit is in the prescribed f onn and the petitioner had
not specifically set out as to which allegations were trne to his personal
D knowledge and which ones are stated 011 i11fonnatio11, yet the electio11 petition
is not liable to be dismissed in limine--Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, R.
94-A and Fonn 25-Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, 0.6, R. 16 and 0.7, R. >-
11.

Electio11 petition-Verification of-Affidavit-fn support of-Defects
E in-Maintainability of-'-Effect on--Held : Defect in verification of election
petition or the affidavit accompanying it is curable and not f atal-Karnataka
High Court Rules, 1959, O.XI, R.4.

Election petitio1t-Corrupt practices-Contents of-Vagueness ill-'-Elec-
tion petition co11tai11ed necessary facts constituting the cause of action for
F invalidating the election and the corrupt practices committed by the retumed ,,.._
candidate had been substantially pleaded--Held: High Court rightly held that ~

even· in respect of one of the corrupt practices material facts and full par-
ticulars are not stated, still the election petition cannot be dismissed in limine
if ill respect of other corrupt practice, the material facts a11d particulars have
been given in accordance with the requirement of S. 83(1}-Election peti-
G tion--Material facts" and material "particulars''-Distinction between--Held
: "Material facts" should be fully set out and if any fact is not set out no
evidence relating thereto will be pennitted to be adduced-Nor can the petition
._,-
be amended after expiry of pe1iod of limitation prescribed for an election
petition-As regards want of ''particulars" Court should afford opportu11ity to
H include the same.
198
H.D. REVANNA v. G. PUTIASWAMY 199
Election petition-Maintainability of-Preliminary objection A
against-Held : Test to decide preliminary objection is whether any of the
reliefs prayed for can be granted if the avem1ents in the petition are proved to
be tme-lf yes, the petition is maintainable.

Section 97-Recrimination petitio1t-Filing of-By retumed can- ·
didate--Held : Does not mean that the retumed candidate admitted the B
,_ allegations made in the election petition.

Election petitio~ecount-Order of-Justification-Held : Has to be
decided at the trial after evidence is adduced in that regard.

Words and Phrases: c
''Material facts" and "Pa1ticulars"-Meaning of

Respondent No. 1 was leading by four votes in an election to the State
Legislative Assembly, when the Returning Officer ordered a recount as a
result of which the appellant was declared elected. Respondent No. 1, D
..... therefore, filed on election petition in the High Court for declaring the
appellant's election to be void and declaring respondent No. 1 to be duly
elected. Respondent No. 1 contended that recount was ordered without
complying with Rule 63 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 and that the
appellant had committed corrupt practices falling within the scope of Sec- E
tions lOO(l)(b) and lOO(l)(d) read with Sections 123(2), 123(7)(1) and
123(8) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The appellant filed a
petition for recrimination and also filed applications for summary dismiss-
al of the election petition. The High Court dismissed the applications.
Hence this appeal.
~
F
Jl On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the verification in the
election petition and the affidavit was not in conformity with Rule 94-A of
the Rules or Form 25, that respondent No. 1 had not specifically set out
which allegations were to his personal knowledge and which where stated on
information, that the allegations of corrupt practices were vague and did
not contain material facts or particulars, and, therefore, the said defects
G
-~- had vitiated the entire election petition and rendered the same liable to be
dismissed.

On behalf of respondent No. 1 it was contended that the filing of
recrimination petition by the appellant showed that he had admitted the H
200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] 1 S.C.R.
A truth of the allegations made in the election petition and, therefore, it was
not open to the appellant to file an appeal in this Court against the order of
the High Court.

Dismissing the appeal, this Court

B HELD : 1. Neither the verification nor the affidavit is in the
prescribed form but the provisions in the Representation of the People Act,
1951 are very specific. Section 86 of the Act provides for dismissal of election
petition in limine for non- compliance of Sections 81, 82and117. Section 81
relates to presentation of election petition. It is not the case of the appellant
C that the requirements of Section 81 were not complied with. Sections 82and117
are not relevant in the present case. Significantly, Section 86 does not refer to
Section 83 and non- compliance of Section 83 does not lead to dismissal under
Section 86. This Court has laid down that non-compliance of Section 83 may
lead to dismissal of the petition if the matter falls within the scope of Order 6
Rule 16 or Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Defect in
D verification of the election petition or the affidavit accompanying the election
petition is curable and not fatal. (205-G; 207-C-F]

Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar v. Roop Singh Rathore, (1964) 3
SCR 573, followed.

E FA. Sapa v.Singora, (1991) 3 SCC 375, relied on.

Ch. Subbarao v.Member, Election Tribunal, Hyderabad, (1964] 6 SCR
213; KM. Mani v. P.J. Antony, (1979) 2 SCC 221 and T.M. Jacob v. O.
Poulose, (1998) 2 SCC 31, referred to.

F Virender Kumar Saklecha v. Jagjiwan, (1972) 1 SCC 826; Dr. Shipra
(Smt.) v.Shantilal Khoiwal, (1996) 5SCC181 andL.R. Shivaramagowda v.
T.M. Chandrashekar, (1998) SCALE 361, held inapplicable.

2. The High Court has found in the election petition that necessary
facts constituting the cause of action for invalidating the election and the
G corrupt practices committed by the appellant have been substantially
pleaded. The High Court, therefore, rightly held that irrespective of the fact ·-r-
that the allegations made in the election petition were true or false it could
not be held that the election petition does not disclose any material fact or
give. the material particulars of any of the corrupt practices. The High
H Court has rightly added that even in respect of one of the corrupt pratices

'
H.D. REVANNA v. G. PUTIASWAMY 201

·-+ alleged material facts and full particulars thereof have not been stated, still A
~
the election petition cannot ~e thrown out at the threshold, if in respect of
other corrupt practices, the material facts and full particulars have been given
in accordance with the requirement of Section 83(1) of the Act. Therefore, it is
not possible to accept the contention that the allegations of corrupt practices
are vague and do not contain material.facts. [209-F; G-H; 210-A-B]
B
. )! 3.1. This Court has repeatedly pointed out the distinction between
'material facts' and 'particulars'. In so far as 'material facts' are con·
cerned, this Court has held that they should be fully set out in the Election
Petition and if any fact in not set out, the petitioner cannot be permitted
to adduce the evidence relating thereto later, nor will he be permitted to
amend the petition after expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for
c
an Election Petition. As regards particulars, the petition cannot be dis·
missed in limine for want of particulars and if the Court finds that
particulars are necessary, an opportunity should be given to the petitioner
to amend the petition and include the particulars. [210-F -G]
D
Shri Ba/wan Singh v. Shri Lakshmi Narain, [1960] 3 SCR 91, followed.
~

Raj Narain v. Smt. Indira Nehrn Gandhi, [1972] 3 SCC 850, relied on.

Dharmvir v.Amar Singh, [1996] 3 SCC 158, held inapplicable.
E
3.2. The test in all cases of preliminary objection is to see whether any
of the reliefs prayed for could be granted to the petitioner if the averments
made in the petition are proved to be true. If the answer to the question is
in the affirmative, the maintainability of the petition has to be upheld. In the
present case, there is no doubt that if the allegations contained in the
~ election petition are proved to be true by the petitioner therein, he will be F
,.. entitled to get the relief set out in the prayer portion. [212-F·G]

4. The petitions for recrimination filed at the threshold of the
proceedings were only on the footing that even if the averments made in the
Election Petition were taken to be correct, the petition was liable to be
G
dismissed as it did not satisfy the requirements of the Election Law. That

-....· does not mean, the appellant had admitted the truth of the allegations made
in the petition. [205-B-C]

5. The question whether the Returning Officer was justified in ordering
recounting in the circumstances of the case and whether such recounting fell H
202 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 1 S.C.R.
A within the scope of Rule 63 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 has to be
decided at the trial after the parties adduced evidence in that regard. [208-F]

Chanda Singh v. Choudhary Shiv Ram Venna, [1975] 4 SCC 393 and
S. Baldev Singh v. Teja Singh Swatantar (dead), [1975] 4 SCC 406, held
inapplicable.
B
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 14211-13
of 1996.,

From the Judgment and Order dated 21.3.96 of the Karnataka High
Court in E.P. Nos. 16 of 1995.
c
K.N. Bhat, S.K. Kulkarni for Ms. Sangeeta Kumar for the Appellant.
'
G.N. Sheshagiri, Mrs. Rajni K. Prasad, Ms. Neelam Sharma and S.
. Srinivasan for the Respondents. ·
D The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
·.. ·

SRINIVASAN, J. The appellant was declared elected on 11.12.94 in
the election held on 26.11.94 for the 133 Holenarasipura Assembly Con-
stituency in Karnataka State. The first respondent filed Election Petition
E No. 16 of 1995 in the High Court of Karnataka on the following grounds :

(a) Non compliance with Rule 63 of the Conduct of Election Rules,
1961, (he_reinafter referred to as 'the Rules') attracting the provisions of
Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
F
(b) Commission of corrupt practices by the appellant and his father
with the consent of the appellant falling within the scope of Section
lOO(l)(b) and Section lOO(l)(d)(ii) read with Section 123(2), 123(7)(t) and
123(8) of the Act.

G 2.. The allegations in the Election Petition were mainly that after
completion of counting by the Returning Officer, without announcing the
result and recording the same in the prescribed form, a request made by
the appellant for recount was entertained by the said official who was
unduly influenced by the father of the appellant, H.D. Devegowda who
H later became the Chief Minister of the State and in course of time the
.... ,... _

H.D.REVANNAv. G.PUTIASWAMY[SRINIVASAN, J.) 203

-~ P/ime Minister of the Country. It was alleged that the first respondent was A
leading by four votes and the father of the appellant who was by then
declared elected to the Assembly, told the Returning Officer through
telephonic communication that a recount should be ordered and the ap-
pellant should be helped to win the election by hook or crook. According
to the petition, recount was ordered without compliance of Rule 63 brush-
ing aside the objections raised by the first respondent arbitrarily and
B
)r
whimsically. Such recounting ordered by the Returning Officer who was
unduly influenced by the father of the appellant was in utter disobedience
of the mandate of law and vitiated the election. Secondly it was alleged that
the vociferous and threatening conduct of the first respondent coerced and
influenced the voters to vote for him as they were threatened with dire c
consequences otherwise. There was an atmosphere of terrorism in several
places which prevented the voters from exercising their franchise freely
according to their will and choice. The agents of Janata Dal party to which
the appellant belonged were in total control of some polling booths and
they were interfering in every election affair. It was also alleged that quite
D
a number of invalid votes were counted in favour of the appellant as if they
..i.. were valid. On such allegations, the first respondent prayed for declaring
the election of the appellant to be void and declaring himself to be duly
elected while holding that the order of recount was void and the result of
such recount was non-est.
E
3. After entering appearance, the appellant filed three applications
for summary dismissal of the Election Petition for non-cempliance with
certain statutory provisions which are mandatory. I.A. No. IX, was on the
grou:id that the petition did not disclose a cause of action as the allegations

- "-
of undue influence and recounting were not followed by any averment that
the result of the election was materially affected; nor was . there any
averment in the petition as to any defect or malpractice in the course of
F

recounting. I.A. No. X was for rejection of the affidavit filed by the
petitioner along with the Election Petition as it did not fulfil the require-
ments of law and consequent dismissal of the petition. I.A. No. XV was
for dismissal of the petition on the ground that allegations of corrupt G

-~-
practices were vague and not supported by material facts or parti.culars.

4. There were some other applications filed by the first respondent
antl respondents 7 & 8 for other reliefs. The High Court disposed them
all by a common order dated 21.3.96. The applications I.A. Nos. IX, X and H

•
204 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] 1 S.C.R.

A XV fded as aforesaid by the appellant were dismissed. Aggrieved thereby,
the appellant has obtained special leave and preferred these appeals.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the
~
verification in the Election Petition and the affidavit filed by the petitioner
therein in support thereof and pointed out that it is not is conformity with
B Rule 94A of the Rules or Form 25. It was argued that the first respondent
had not specifically set out which allegations were to his personal
knowledge and which were stated on information. The failure to do so
vitiated the entire Election Petition and made it liable to be dismissed.
Secondly, he argued that recounting by the Returning Officer at the
c instance of the appellant was not the one contemplated by Rule 63 and did
not require to fulfil the conditions set forth in the rule. In any event,
according to him, there was no allegation in the Election Petition as to the
commission of any illegality or irregularity in the course of such recounting;
nor was there any allegation that the result of the election was materially
affected on account of such illegality or irregularity in recounting. Thirdly,
D he contended that the allegations of corrupt practices were very vague and
did not contain material facts or particulars. Thus, according to him, the ..!.
Election Petition deserved to be dismissed in limine in the light of the law
laid down by this court in several decisions.

E 6. As against this, learned counsel for the first respondent argued as
follows:

The Election Petition mentioned clearly the matters of which the
petitioner therein had knowledge of his own and the matters of which he
F got information from others and believed them. The fact that the affidavit
or the verification in the petition did not set out the numbers of the
paragraphs separately did not affect the validity of the petition. Secondly,
~
-
the recounting ordered by the Returning Officer was in violation of the
provisions of Rule 63 and the said Officer was unduly influenced by the
father of the appellant. According to him, the first respondent was leading
G by four votes and in order to make the appellant win the election, recount-
,_,
ing was ordered without even providing a copy of the application given by
·-r-
the appellant to the Returning Officer for recounting. The passing of the
said order was itself sufficient to vitiate the election. Thirdly, it was argued
that. the Election Petition described in detail the corrupt practices com-
H mitted by the appellant and his father as defined by Section 123(2)

. -
H.D.REVANNAv. G.PUTIASWAMY[SRINIVASAN, J.] 205

123(7)(f) and 123(8). It was further argued that the fact that the appellant A
had filed petitions for recrimination showed that he admitted the allega-
tions contained in the Election Petition and it was not open to him to file
an appeal in this court against the order of the High Court.

7. We can straightaway dispose of the last contention of the first
respondent's counsel as one without any substance. The petitions for B
recrimination filed at the threshold of the proceedings were only on the
footing that even if the averments made in the Election Petition were taken
to be correct, the petition was liable to be dismissed as it did not satisfy
the requirements of the Election Law. That does not mean, the appellant
had admitted the truth of the allegations made in the petition. C

8. The verification at the end of the Election Petition reads as
follows :

"I, Sri G. Puttaswamy Gowda, the election petitioner in the
~
above petition do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that what is D
.),.._ stated above in paras 1 to 6 are true to the best of my knowledge
and belief and accordingly I have signed the above election petition
on this 23rd day of January 1995 at Bangalore".

The affidavit filed in support of the petition states thus :
E
"That the statements made in paragraphs 1 to 6 of the accom-
panying election petition about the commission of the corrupt
practice of the Respondent- I, the returned candidate, and the
particulars of such corrupt practice, mentioned in paragraphs 1 to
... 6 of the same petition and in paragraphs....... to ........ of the
F
-'t
Annexures-A to R appended thereto are true to my knowledge
and information as set out in the body of the petition".

9. Neither the verification nor the affidavit is in the prescribed from.
No doubt, this Court has repeatedly stressed the importance and necessity
of the affidavit being in the prescribed form. It will be sufficient to refer G
to the two rulings cited by the learned counsel for the appellant.
"'>I "
10. In Dr. Shipra (Smt.) & Ors. v. Shanti/al Klzoiwal & Ors., (1996) 5
S.C.C. i81, it was observed :

"Sections 81, 83(1)(c) and 86 read with Rule 94-A of the Rules H
206 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) 1 S.C.R.

A and Form 25 are to be read conjointly as an integral scheme. When
so read, if the court finds on an objection, being raised by the
returned candidate, as to the maintainability of the election peti-
tion, the court is required to go into the question and decide the
preliminary objection. In case the court does not uphold the same,
B the need to conduct trial would arise. If the court upholds the
preliminary objection, the election petition would result in dismiss-
al at the threshold, as the court is left with no option except to
dismiss the same".

C 11. Very recently m L.R. Shivaramagowda, Etc. v. T.M.
Chandrashekar Etc., (1998) 6 SCALE 361, the matter was dealt with at
some length. The court referred to Virendra Kumar Saklecha v. Jagjiwan &
Ors., [1972)'1 S.C.C. 826 and quoted a passage in which the importance of
disclosing the sources of information in the affidavit was stressed. After
referring to the later decisions taking a similar view, the Bench said as
D follows:

"16. If the above well settled principles are applied in this case
there is no doubt whatever that the electron petition suffers from
a very serious defect of failure to set out material facts of the
E alleged corrupt practice. The defect invalidates the election peti-
tion in that regard and the petitioner ought not to have been
permitted to adduce any evidence with reference to the same".

· "16A. We have already extracted paragraphs (f) & (g) of the
F affidavit filed along with the election petition. It does not disclose
the source of information. Nor does it set out which part of the
election petition was personally known to the petitioner and which
part came to be known by him on information. Significantly,
paragraphs (a) to (e) of the affidavit state that the averments
G therein are true to his information. Paragraph (f) is silent on this
aspect of the matter. Paragraph (g) refers all the 42 paragraphs in
the petition. The affidavit is not in conformity with the prescribed
Form No. 25. Thus there is a failure to comply with Rule 94-A of
the Conduct of Election Rules. It is a very serious defect which
H has been overlooked by the High Court".
H.D.REVANNAv. G.PUTTASWAMY[SRINIVASAN, J.] 207

12. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the provisions in A
-+ O.XI of the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959 pertaining to affidavits
used in the High Court. Rule 4 of O.XI reads as follows :

"When an affidavit contains statements of facts not within the
declarant's personal knowledge but based on the information
received by the declarant, he shall state so and that he believes B
them to be true and also give the source of such information
wherever possible and the ground of his belief if any".

13. It is therefore argued by learned counsel for the appellant that
the Election Petition should be dismissed in limine.
c
14. The argument is no doubt attractive. But, the relevant provisions
in the Act are very specific. Section 86 provides for dismissal of election
petition in limine for non-compliance of Sections 81, 82 and 117. Section
81 relates to presentation of election petition. It is not the case of the
appellant before us that the requirements of Section 81 were not complied D
with though in the High Court as contention was urged that a true copy of
the election petition was not served on the appellant and thus the
provisions of Section. 81 were not complied. Section 82 and 117 are not
relevant in this case. Significantly Section 86 does not refer to Section 83
and non-compliance of Sectipn 83 does not lead to dismissal under Section E
86. This Court has laid down that non-compliance of Section 83 may lead
to dismissal of the petition if the matter falls within the scope of 0.6, R.
16 or 0.7., R,11 C.P.C. Defect in verification of the election petition or the
affidavit accompanying election petition has been held to be curable and
not fatal.
F
15. In Murarka Radltey Sltyam Ram Kumar v. Roop Singh Rat/tore &
... Ors., [1964] 3 S.C.R. 573, a Constitution Bench has held in unmistakable
terms that a defect in the verification of an election petition as required by
Section 83(1)(c) of the Act was not fatal to the maintainability of the
petition and that a defect in the affidavit was not a sufficient ground for
dismissal of the petition. Another Constitution Bench held in Cit. Subbarao G
v. Member, Election Tribunal, Hyderabad, [1964) 6 S.C.R. 213, that even
with regard to Section 81(3), substantial compliance with the requirement
thereof was sufficient and only in cases of total or complete non-com-
pliance with the provisions of Section 81(3), it could be said that the
election petition was not one presented in accordance with the provisions H
-,,.-

208 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] 1 S.C.R.
A of that part of the Act.

16. It is the said principle of substantial compliance which was
adopted in KM. Mani v. P.J. Antony & Ors., [1979] 2 S.C.C. 221. Reliance
has rightly been placed thereon by learned counsel for the respondent.

B 17. In FA. Sapa & Ors. v. Singora & Ors., [1991] 3 S.C.C. 375, this
Court held that a defect in the verification of the petition as well as a defect
in the affidavit can be cured and it is not fatal to the maintainability of the
petition. Neither in Virendra Kumar Saklecha v. Jagjiwan & Ors., (1972] 1
S.C.C. 826, nor in L.R. Shivaramagowda, Etc. v. T.M. Chandrashekar Etc.,
C [1998] 6 SCALE 361 this Court went to the extent of holding that the
election petition should be dismissed in limine for a deficiency in the
affidavit or verification. In fact the question was expressly left open in the
former case and it did not arise in the latter.

18. The decision in Dr. Shipra (Smt.) & Ors. v. Shanti/al Khoiwal &
D Ors., [1996] 5 S.C.C. 181 was based on the facts found therein. The
observations made by the learned Judges in that case were found to be
wide and the• matter has been referred to a larger Bench by a Bench of
three Judges in T.M. Jacob v. 0. Poulose & Ors., [1998] 2 S.C.C. 31. In any
event, the ruling in Dr. Shipra's case does not apply to the present case as
E the facts are different.

19. As regards the second contention of learned counsel for the
appellant, the question whether the Returning Officer was justified in
ordering recounting in the circumstances of the case and whether such
recounting fell within the scope of Rule 63 has to be decided at the trial.
F No opinion can be expressed at this stage on that question before the
parties adduce evidence in that regard.

20. There is no merit in the contention that the Election Petition does
not set out any illegality committed at the time of recounting. The various
averments in the petition are to the effect that the order directing recount
G was itself an illegality vitiating the result of the election and also that in the
course of such recounting, several illegalities were committed whereby the
result of the election was materially effected. It is specifically averred in ·~
the petition that a large number of ballot papers which were invalid and
were liable to be rejected were counted as valid votes in favour of the
H appellant. The attempt of the learned counsel for the appellant is to divide
.
.
'
H.D. REVANNA v. G. PUTIASWAMY [SRINIVASAN, J.) 209

the Election Petition into two separate compartments, one dealing with A
...... + recounting and the other with corrupt practices. It is not possible to dissect
the Election Petition in that manner. The allegations regarding invalid
votes no doubt find a place in paragraph 3 but they have to be read
together with averments relating to recounting.

21. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to B
.lr Chanda Singh v. Choudha1y Shiv Ram Venna and Others, (1975] 4 S.C.C .
393. It was held in that case that victory by a very few votes may certainly
be a ground to fear unwitting error in count given other circumstances
tending that way. But the Court had cautioned the Returning Officer to be
very careful, objective and sensitive in assessing the legitimacy of the plea c
for re-running the course of counting. The other ruling referred to by the
learned counsel on this aspect of the matter is S. Baldev Singh v. Teja Singh
.Swatantar (dead) and Others, [1975] 4 S.C.C. 406. The same Bench which
dealt with Chanda Singh's case held that the mandate of Rule 63 is that
allowance of recount is not the exception and the refusal was restricted to
cases where the demand itself was frivolous or unreasonable and that
D
;· ..
,.. circumstances of each case decide the matter. The Bench also observed
that where the margin of difference was minimal, the claim for a fresh
count could not be summarily brushed aside as futile or trumpery. Both
these rulings do not help the appellant at this stage. As pointed out earlier
the matter depends upon the facts and circumstances which have to be E
established by evidence at the trial.

22. The third contention of learned counsel for the appellant relates
to the allegations of corrupt practices. We are unable to accept his con-
tention that they are vague and do not contain material facts. The High F
_,_,
Court has extracted the relevant portions of the Election Petition which
~
deal with corrupt practices. After perusing the entire petition, the High
Court has observed as follows :

''Therefore, from a perusal of these and other paragraphs of
the election petition it appears that the petitioner has stated about G
the corrupt practices alleged to have been committed or practiced
~· by the first respondent. After a perusal of the grounds taken in
the election petition, I find force in the contention of the learned
Counsel for the petitioner that necessary facts constituting the
cause of action for invalidating the election and the corrupt prac- H
>.
'

210 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999) 1 S.C.R.

A tices committed by respondent-1 have been substantially pleaded.
The allegations made in the election petition may be true or false,
but, it is not possible to hold that the election petition does not
disclose any material fact or give the material particulars of any of
the corrupt practices. It is required to be stated that even if the
court is satisfied that in respect of one of the corrupt practices
B alleged material facts and full particulars thereof have not been
stated, still the election petition cannot be thrown out at the
threshold, if in respect of other corrupt practice, the material facts
and full particulars have been given in accordances with the re-
quirement of Section 83(1) of the Act. As rightly argued by the
c learned counsel for the petitioner, the contents of the election
petition are to be read as a whole and not to disjoint them from
the context. They cannot be read in a truncated manner. If this
test is applied, to the averments made in paragraphs 2 and 3, of
the election petition, it will be quite clear that these paragraphs
taken as a whole relates to the allegations regarding the commis-
D
sion of the corrupt practice under Section 123 of the Act and also
with regard to the other irregularities which invalidates the election
of the respondent- 1".

We are entirely in agreement with the aforesaid view expressed by
E the High Court.

23. This Court has repeatedly pointed out the distinction between
'material facts' and 'particulars'. In so far as 'material facts' are concerned,
this Court has held that they should be fully set out in the Election Petition
F and if any fact is not set out, the petitioner can not be permitted to adduce
the evidence relating thereto later; nor will he be permitted to amend the
petition after expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for an Election
Petition. As regards particulars, the consistent view expressed by this
Court, is that the petition can not be dismissed in limine for want of
particulars and if the Court finds that particulars are necessary, an oppor-
G tunity should be given to the petitioner to amend the petition and include
the particulars. The Constitution Bench in Shri Ba/wan Singh v. Shri
Lakshmi Narain & Ors., (1960) 3 S.C.R. 91 held that an election petition
was not liable to be dismissed in limine merely because full particular of a
corrupt practice alleged were not set out. It was observed that if an
H objection was taken and the Tribunal was of the view that particulars had
H.D. REVANNAv. G. PUTIASWAMY [SRINIVASAN, J.] 211

... ~
+ not been set out, the petitioner had to be given an opportunity to amend A
or amplify the particulars and that it was only in the event of non-com-
pliance with the order to supply the particulars, the charge could be struck
out.

24. In Raj Narain v. Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi & A11r., (1972) 3 S.C.C.
B
- _..
850 the question was discussed. in detail and it was held that pleadings
need not be construed strictly. ft is advantageous to extract the following
passage:
0
"While a corrupt practice has got to be strictly proved but from
that it does not follow that a pleading in an election proceeding
should receive a strict construction. This Court has held that even
c
a defective charge does not vitiate a criminal trial unless it is proved
that the same has prejudiced the accused. If a pleading on a
reasonable construction could sustain the action, the court should
accept that construction. The courts are reluctant to frustrate an
action on technical grounds. The charge of corrupt practice is a D
very serious charge. Purity of election is very essence of real
democracy. The charge in question has been denied by the respon-
dent. It has yet to be proved. It may or may not be proved. The
allegations made by the appellant may ultimately be proved to be
wholly devoid of truth. But the question is whether the appellant
E
should be refused an opportunity to prove his allegations? Should
the court refuse to enquire into those allegations merely because
~.
the appellant or someone who prepared his brief did not know the
~' language of the law. We have no hesitation in answering those
questions in the negative. The implications of the rule of law are
manifold." (Para 16) ............................................. F

...
)l
·········································································
--<
"19. Rules of pleadings are intended as aids for a fair trial and for
..... reaching a just decision. An action at law should not be eq\iated
to a game of Chess. Provision of law are not mere formulae to be
observed as rituals. Beneath the words of a provision of law,
G
----)I;' generally speaking, there lies a juristic principle. It is the duty of
the court to ascertain that principle and implement it".

25. Applying the aforesaid rules in the present case the High Court
has rightly observed in the judgment under appeal as follows : H
212 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) 1 S.C.R.
A "'Therefore, in my view, the averments made in Paragraphs 2 +.
and 3 of the election petition read as a whole and in its entirety
would clearly satisfy the requirement of Section 83(1) of the Act,
in as much as the material facts, on which reliance was placed, for .
alleging the corrupt practice and other illegalities invalidating the
election, to enable the respondent No. 1 meet the allegations made
B against him. In fact, having clearly understood the scope and ambit
of the allegations made against him in the election petition, the
responde~ No. 11 has been able to file a recrimination petition
filed along with the notice of recrimination submitted to the Court.
Thus, there is no deficiency in the pleading of the corrupt practice
c '
under Section 123 of the Act and the other illegalities invalidating
the election."

26. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to
Dharamvir Etc. Etc. v. Amar Singh and Others Etc. Etc., [1996) 3 S.C.C. 158.
D A Bench of two Judges held that sub-sections (2) and (7) of Section 123
of the Act are applicable only to cases of corrupt practice indulged at the
stage prior to the casting of the votes and not at the post-voting stage. The
facts in the case were entirely different. It was also pointed out in the
judgment that the election and. counting were over in that case prior to
insertion of Section 128(8) and 135A(d) of the Act and those provisions
E were not retrospective in operation and therefore not applicable to the
facts of the case. In the present case the election was itself held only in
1994 long after the insertion of said provisions and the ruling has therefore
no applicability in this case,

F 27. The test in all cases of preliminary objection is to see whether
any of the reliefs prayed for could be granted to the petitioner if the
averments made in the petition are proved to be true. If the answer to the
question is in the affirmative, the maintainability of the petition has to be
upheld. In. the present case we have. no doubt that if the allegations
contained in the election petition are proved to be true by the petitioner
G therein, he will be entitled to get the relief set out in the prayer portion.
Hence, we do not find any merit in the appeals and they are hereby
dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 5,000. (one set)

v.s.s. Appeals dismissed.