K.K. RAMACHANDRAN MASTERversusM.V. SREYAMAKUMAR & ORS.

                        [2010] 7 S.C.R. 712


A                K.K. RAMACHANDRAN MASTER
                                  v.
                  M.V. SREYAMAKUMAR & ORS.
                   (Civil Appeal No. 638 of 2007)
                           JULY 06, 2010
B
               [D.K. JAIN AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.]

        Representation of the People Act, 1951:

c        ss.83, 86, 123(4), 123(5 and 123(6) - Election petition
    challenging election of returned candidate on the ground of
    corrupt practices - High Court dismissed the petition - On
    appeal, held: A verments made in election petition that
    returned candidate was responsible for printing, publication
0   and distribution of statements in newspapers which materially
    affected the result of election - Averments sufficiently
    disclosed cause of action - High Court committed error in
    holding otherwise - Matter remitted to High Court for
    consideration afresh.

E       s.86 - Verification of the pleading - Defect in - Held: Is
    curable - Code of Civil Procedure, · 1908.

       Appellant filed election petition challenging the
  election of first respondent on the ground of corrupt
F practices under Sections 123(4), (5) and (6) of
  Representation of People Act. Appellant's case was that
  false, defamatory and baseless allegations were
  published in various newspapers and circulated by the
  first respondent in order to lower the dignity, reputation
G and personality of the appellant amongst the voters of his
  constituency.

         High Court dismissed the petition holding that the
    petition was not properly verified in as much as the same

H                                712
       K.K. RAMACHANDRAN MASTER v. M.V.                  713
             SREYAMAKUMAR & ORS.
did not disclose the source of information on the basis         A
of which the appellant had made the allegations of
corrupt practices and the election petition did not state
either the material facts or give the necessary particulars
so as to disclose a complete cause of action justifying
trial. Hence the appeal.                                        B

   Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High
Court, the Court

     HELD: 1.1. Section 83 of the Representation of
People Act mandates that an election petition must              C
contain a concise statement of the material facts on
which the petitioner relies and set forth full particulars of
any corrupt practice that the petitioner alleges, including
as full a statement as possible of the names of the parties
alleged to have committed such corrupt practices and the        D
date and place of the commission of each such practice.
It also requires that the petition be signed--by the
petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the
Code of Civil Procedure for the verification of the
pleadings. A petition that does not disclose material facts     E
can be dismissed as one that does not disclose a cause
of action. The dismissal of a petition on the ground of
deficiency or non-disclosure of particulars of corrupt
practice may be justified only if the election petitioner
does not despite an opportunity given by the Court              F
provide the particulars and thereby cure the defect.
[Paras 4, 5) [719-F-H; 720-A-C)

    Samant N. Balkrishna v. George Fernandez (1969) 3
SCC 238; Raj Narain v. Indira Nehru Gandhi (1972) 3 SCC
850; H.D. Revanna v. G. Puttaswamy Gowda (1999) 2 SCC           G
217; V.S. Achuthanandan v. P.J. Francis (1999) 3 SCC 737;
Mahendra Pal v. Ram Dass Ma/anger (2000) 1 SCC 261;
Sardar Harcharan Singh Brar v. Sukh Darshan Singh (2004)
11 SCC 196; Harkirat Singh v. Amrinder Singh (2005) 13
SCC 511; Umesh Challiyil v. K. P. Rajendra (2008) 11 SCC        H
    714      SUPREME COURT REPORTS.              [2010] 7 S.C.R.

A 740; Virender Nath Gautam v. Satpa/ Singh (2007) 3 SCC
  617, relied on.                      ·

        1.2. The defective verification or affidavit is curable.
    What consequences, if any, may flow from an allegedly
    defective affidavit, is required to be judged at the trial of
8
    an election petition but such election petition cannot be
    dismissed under Section 86(1) of the Act for any such
    defect. [Para 11] [723-H; 724-A-B]

          F.A. Sapa v. Singora (1991) 3 SCC 375, relied on.
c
       1.3. Section 123(4) of the Act makes publication of
  any statement of fact which is false, and which relates to
  the personal character or conduct of any candidate a
  corrupt practice if any such statement is reasonably
0 calculated to prejudice the prospects of that candidate's
  election and if such publication has been made by a
  candidate or his election agent or by any other person
  with the consent of the candidate or his election agent.
  A reading of the averments made in the election petition
E would show that the same gave particulars of how the
  published materials were transported and distributed
  among various booths of the constituency on 28th April,
  2006 by the first respondent, his election agent, polling
  agents, other agents, workers and campaigners with the
  consent and connivance of the first respondent. These
F averments not only gave the registration numbers of the
  vehicles in which the material was transported but also
  the names of the persons who actually distributed the
  said material amongst the voters of the constituency. The
  names of the persons who informed the appellant about
G the distribution of the printed material were also indicated
  in sufficient details. The details of the printed material at
  other booths in the constituency and other members
  relating to the distribution of the said material were set
  out in sufficient detail. In another publication on 29th April,
H 2006, the appellant was accused of demanding rupees
      K.K. RAMACHANDRAN MASTER v. M.V.                715
            SREYAMAKUMAR & ORS.
one lakh from a UD Clerk in the Primary Health Centre.       A
The appellant further alleged that the publication of the
baseless and false news item on the eve of the election
scheduled to be held on 29th April, 2006 without affording
an opportunity to explain the real facts to the public as
well as to the affected voters was totally ma/a fide and     B
was calculated to prejudicially affect his election
prospects and cause irreparable loss to the appellant by
creating confusion and doubts about his character,
personality and dignity. [Paras 13,17-20] [724-E; 726-G-H;
727-A-C]                                                     C

     1.4. Section 123(5) of the Act makes hiring and
securing of vehicles whether on payment or otherwise for
the free conveyance of any elector to and from any
polling station with the consent of a c~:ndidate or his
election agent, a corrupt practice. The election petition D
specifically alleged that the first respondent, his election
agent and other agents and workers had secured
vehicles for transport of the voters to and fro polling
stations contrary to Section 123(5) of the Act. The
averments in the petition not only gave the registration E
numbers but also the names of the owners/drivers of the
vehicles used for providing free transport of the voters ·
of different booths. The averments made in the election
petition constituted a statement of material facts required
in terms of Section 83A of the Act. Although the F
particulars given therein gave rise to justify a trial yet if
there were any deficiency in the disclosure of the
particulars, the High Court could have directed the
petitioner to furnish the said particulars. Dismissal of the
petition on the ground that the averments did not G
constitute matt:rial facts and did not give rise to a
complete cause of action was not a correct appreciation
of the said averments. The same is true even in regard
to the averments in the election petition in which the
 petitioner had alleged that the respondent No.1 had H
    716    SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2010] 7 S.C.R.

A committed a corrupt practice within the meaning of
  Section 123(6) of the Act by incurring or authorizing
  expenditure in contravention of Section 77 of the Act. The
  appellant had clearly alleged that the first respondent had
  spent an amount of Rs.78 lakhs for his election as against
B the outer limit of Rs.10 lakhs stipulated under Section 77
  of the Act read with Rule 90 of the Election Rules, 1961.
  The averments disclosed in sufficient details the basis on
  which the said allegation was made. The averments made
  in the election petition thus sufficiently disclosed a cause
c of action. The averments set out the material facts and
  gave sufficient particulars that would justify the grant of
  an opportunity to the appellant to prove his allegations.
  In as much as the High Court, found otherwise,
  committed a mistake. At any rate, if there was any
  deficiency in the particulars required to be furnished in
0
  terms of Section 83(b) of the Act, the High Court could
  and indeed ought to have directed the petitioner to
  disclose and provide the same with a view to preventing
  any miscarriage of justice on account of non-disclosure
  of the same. Since the material facts were stated in the
E present case, the absence of particulars, if any, could not
  justify dismissal of the petition by the High Court. [Paras
  21- 23] [730-D-H; 731-A-D; 730-A-C]
                         Case Law Reference:
F    (1969) 3 sec 238        relied on         Para 6

     (1972) 3 sec 850        relied on         Para 7
      (1999) 2 sec 211       relied on         Para 8
G    (1999) 3 sec 131        relied on         Para 8
      (2000) 1 sec 261       relied on         Para 8
      (2004) 11 sec 196      relied on         Paras 8, 11
      (2005) 13 sec 511      relied on         Para 9
H
       K.K. RAMACHANDRAN MASTER v. M.V.                     717
             SREYAMAKUMAR & ORS.
  (2008) 11 SCC 7 40       relied on            Para 9              A
  (2001) 3 sec s11         relied on            Para 10

  (1991) 3 sec 375         relied on            Para 11

     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 638             B
of 2007.

    From the Judgment & Order dated 3.1.2007 of the High
Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in El. Pet. No. 8 of 2006.

    Romy Chacko, Jasaswini Mishra for the Appellant.                C

     Rama Kumar, Seema Jain, Himinder Lal, Ranjith, K.C., for
the Respondent.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                    D
     T.S. THAKUR, J. 1. Election to the Kerala State
Legislative Assembly was held in April, 2006. Among other
constituencies that went to poll on 29.4.2006 was 029 Kalpetta
LA Constituency with as many as 11 candidates in the fray. The
candidates included the appellant as' a nominee of Indian           E
National Congress (I) a constituent of the United Democratic
Front ('UDF' for short). Janta Dal (S) a constituent of the Left
Democratic Front had set up respondent No.1 as its candidate,
while respondent No.2 was sponsored by Bhartiya Janata
Party. Respondents No.3 and 4 were similarly contesting on the      F
mandate of the Bahujan Samaj Party and All India Anna Dravid
Munnetta Kazhakam respectively. The remaining candidates
were all independent. The result of the election came on 11th
of May, 2006, which declared the first respondent elected with
a margin of 1841 votes over the appellant his nearest rival. Most   G
of the other candidates in the fray lost their deposits.

    2. Aggrieved by the election of respondent No.1 the
appellant filed election petition No.8 of 2006 before the High
Court of Kerala at Cochin alleging that the returned candidate
had committed several corrupt practices that rendered his           H
    718       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2010] 7 S.C.R.


A election liable to be set aside. The petition was contested by
  the elected candidate inter alia on the ground that the same
  suffered from fatal defects that rendered it liable to be
  dismissed without a trial. The election petition did not,
  according to the respondent, state either the material facts or
B give the necessary particulars so as to disclose a complete
  cause of action justifying a trial. It was also alleged that the
  petition was not properly verified and was, therefore, liable to
  be dismissed on that additional ground as well. All these
  contentions urged on behalf of the respondent found favour with
c the High Court resulting in the dismissal of the petition by the
  order impugned in the present appeal. The High Court
  observed that the averments made in the petition were
  insufficient to disclose a complete cause of action or give rise
  to a triable issue. It found fault with the verification of the petition
0 in as much as the same did not disclose the source of
  information on the basis of which the election petitioner had
  made allegations of corrupt practices against the respondent.
  The verification did not, according to the High Court, make any
  distinction between what was true to the knowledge of the
E petitioner and what he believed to be true on the basis of
  information received.

        3. Section 86 of the Representation of People Act
  mandates that the High Court shall dismiss an election petition
  if the same does not comply with the provisions of Sections 81,
F 82 or 117 of the said Act. Sections 81, 82 and 117 of the Act
  deal with presentation of the petition, parties to the petition and
  security for costs. It is common ground that the election petition
  filed by the appellant in the instant case did not suffer from any
  defect relatable to any one of the said three provisions.
G Dismissal of the election petition by the order impugned in this
  appeal is, not therefore, referable to Section 86 of the Act, which
  implies that the High Court has dismissed the election petition
  on the premise that the averments made in the election petition
  alleging commission of corrupt practices do not disclose
H
      K.K. RAMACHANDRAN MASTER v. M.V.                          719
     SREYAMAKUMAR & ORS. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
material facts as required under Section 83 of the Act. Section         A
83 reads as under:-

    "83. Contents of petition.-(1) An election petition-

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

    (b) shall set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice that
    the petitioner alleges, including as full a statement as
    possible of the names of the parties alleged to have
    committed such corrupt practice and the date and place              c
    of the commission of each such practice; and

    (c) shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the
    manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
    (5 of 1908) for the verification of pleadings:
                                                                        D
    [Provided that where the petitioner alleges any corrupt
    practice, the petition shall also be accompanied by an
    affidavit in the prescribed form in support of the allegation
    of such corrupt practice and the particulars thereof.]
                                                                        E
    (2) Any schedule or annexure to the petition shall also be
    signed by the petitioner and verified in the same manner
    as the petition.]"

      4. There is in the light of the above no gainsaying that an
election petition must contain a concise statement of the               F
material facts on which the petitioner relies and set forth full
particulars of any corrupt practice that the petitioner alleges,
including as full a statement as possible of the names of the
parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practices and
the date and place of the commission of each such practice. It          G
also requires that the petition be signed by the petitioner and
verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure
for the verification of the pleadings.

     5. The provisions of Section 83 (supra) have fallen for            H
    720      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 7 S.C.R.


A interpretation in several cases leading to a long line of
  decisions that have understood the said provisions to mean that
  while an election petition must necessarily contain a statement
  of material facts, deficiency if any, in providing the particulars
  of a corrupt practice could be made up by the petitioner at any
B later stage. The provision has been interpreted to mean that
  while a petition that does not disclose material facts can be
  dismissed as one that does not disclose a cause of action,
  dismissal on the ground of deficiency or non-disclosure of
  particulars of corrupt practice may be justified only if the election
c petitioner does not despite an opportunity given by the Court
  provide the particulars and thereby cure the defect. We do not
  consider it necessary to refer to all the decisions delivered on
  the subject as reference to some only of such decisions should
  in our opinion suffice.

D      6. In Samant N. Balkrishna v. George Fernandez, (1969)
  3 sec 238 this Court held that Section 83 was mandatory and
  requires the election petition to contain a concise statement of
  material facts and the fullest possible particulars of the corrupt
  practices if any alleged. The use of word "material facts"
E observed by the Court shows that facts necessary to formulate
  a complete cause of action must be stated. Omission of a
  single material fact could consequently lead to an incomplete
  cause of action. The function of particulars is however only to
  present a full picture of the cause of action with such further
F information in detail as is sufficient to make the opposite party
  understand the case he is called upon to meet. There may be
  some overlapping between material facts and particulars but
  the two are quite distinct, observed the court. Material facts will
  show the ground of corrupt practice and the complete cause
G of action while particulars will give necessary information to
  present a full picture of the same.

         7. In Raj Narian v. Indira Nehru Gandhi, (1972) 3 SCC
    850, this Court had another opportunity to interpret the
    provisions of Section 83 and to cull out the principles that would
H
      K.K. RAMACHANDRAN MASTER v. M.V.                      721
     SREYAMAKUMAR & ORS. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
determine whether an election petition complied with the            A
requirement of the said provision. This Court cautioned that just
because a corrupt practice has to be strictly proved did not
mean that a pleading in an election proceedings should receive
a strict construction. Even a defective charge, observed the
Court, did not vitiate a criminal trial unless it was proved that   B
the same had prejudiced the accused. If a pleading on a
reasonable construction could sustain the action, the court
should accept that construction and be slow in dismissing an
election petition lest it frustrates an action only on technical
grounds. The court also observed that a charge of corrupt           c
practice is no doubt a very serious charge but the court has to
consider whether the petitioner should be refused an opportunity
to prove the allegations made by him merely because the
petition was drafted clumsily. The following passages from the
decision in Raj Narain's case (supra) are apposite in this
                                                                    D
regard:

     "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 a defective charge does not vitiate a       E
     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.                      F



    The charge of corrupt practice in an election is a very
    serious charge. Purity of election is the very essence of
    real democracy. The charge in question has been denied          G
    by the respondent. 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 should be refused an
    opportunity to prove his allegations? Should the court          H
    722       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2010] 7 S.C.R.


A         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.

B
                If the allegations made regarding a corrupt practice
          do not disclose the constituent parts of the corrupt practice
          alleged, the same will not be allowed to be proved and
          further those allegations cannot be amended after the
c         period of limitation for filing an election petition; but the
          court may allow particulars of any corrupt practice alleged
          in the petition to be amended or amplified.


D
          Rules of pleadings are intended as aids for a fair trial and
          for reaching a just decision. An action at law should not
          be equated to a game of chess. Provisions of law are not
          mere formulae to be observed a rituals. Beneath the words
          of a provision of law, generally speaking, there lies a
E         juristic principle. It is the duty of the court to ascertain that
          principle and implement it."

         8. The above principles have been reiterated by this Court
    in H.D. Revanna v. G. Puttaswamy Gowda, (1999) 2 SCC 217;
F    V.S. Achuthanandan v. P.J. Francis, (1999) 3 SCC 737;
    Mahendra Pal v. Ram Dass Ma/anger, (2000) 1 SCC 261 and
    Sardar Harcharan Singh Brar v. Sukh Darshan Singh, (2004)
    11 sec 196.

       9. Reference may also be made to Harkirat Singh v.
G Amrinder Singh, (2005) 13 SCC 511, where this Court
  reiterated the distinction between material facts and particulars
  and held that while material facts are primary and basic facts
  which must be pleaded by the plaintiff, particulars are details
  in support of such material facts. They simply amplify, refine and
H embellish the material facts by giving distinctive touch to the
      K.K. RAMACHANDRAN MASTER v. M.V.                         723
     SREYAMAKUMAR & ORS. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
basic contours of a picture already drawn so as to make it more        A
clear and informative. Particulars thus ensure conduct of a fair
trial so that the opposite party is not taken by surprise. To the
same effect is the decision of this Court in Umesh Challiyil v.
K.P. Rajendra, (2008) 11 SCC 740, where the Court held that
even if the respondents raised an objection in his counter             B
affidavit and the appellant had despite the opportunity to cure
the defect pointed out by the respondent did not do so yet an
election petition cannot be dismissed on the ground that the
petitioner had not cured any such defects. The petitioner was
entitled to bona fide believe that the petition is in all respects     c
complete and if the High Court found it otherwise it would give
 an opportunity to him to amend or cure the defect. This court
 also held that while dealing with election petitions the Court
 should not adopt a technical approach only to dismiss the
 election petitions on the threshold.
                                                                       D
     10. In Virender Nath Gautam v. Satpa/ Singh, (2007) 3
SCC 617, this Court made a distinction between the need for
supporting material facts and the means by which such facts
are proved by the party alleging the same:
                                                                       E
     "There is distinction between facta probanda (the facts
     required to be proved i.e. material facts) and facts
     probantia (the facts by means of which they are proved i.~.
     particulars or evidence). It is settled law that pleadings must
     contain only facta probanda and not facta probantia. The          F
     material facts on which the party relies for his claim are
     called facts probanda ·and they must be stated in the
     pleadings. But the facts or facts by means of which facta
     probanda (material facts) are proved and which are in the
     nature of facta probantia (particulars or evidence) need not      G
     be set out in the pleadings. They are not facts in issue, but
     only relevant facts required to be proved at the trial in order
     to establish the fact in issue."

    11. The question whether a defect in the verification of the
pleading is fatal is also no longer res integra in the light of the    H
   724      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [201 O] 7 S.C.R.


A decision in F.A. Sapa v. Singora, (1991) 3 SCC 375 and
  Sardar Harcharan Singh Brar's case (supra) where this Court
  held that defective verification or affidavit is curable. What
  consequences, if any, may flow from an allegedly defective
  affidavit, is required to be judged at the trial of an election
B petition but such election petition cannot be dismissed under
  Section 86( 1) of the Act for any such defect.

       12. Coming then to the facts of the case at hand the
  appellant had challenged the election of respondent No. 1 on
C the ground that the latter had committed corrupt practices within .
  the meaning of Section 123(1)(A), 123(4), 123 (5) and 123(6)
  apart from violating the provisions of Section 127A and 133 of
  the Representation of People Act and Rules 86 and 90 of the
  Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. In the course of the hearing
  before us, however, the appellant confined his challenge to the
D election on the grounds referable to Section 123(4), 123(5) and
   123(6) of the Act only.

       13. Section 123(4) of the Act makes publication of any
  statement of fact which is false, and which relates to the
E personal character or conduct of any candidate a corrupt
  practice if any such statement is reasonably calculated to
  prejudice the prospects of that candidate's election and if such
  publication has been made by a candidate or his election agent
  or by any other person with the consent of the candidate or his
F election agent.

       14. The appellant's case as set out in the election petition
  is that a notice in the form of a newspaper under the title
  'Janasabdam' was printed, published and circulated by the first
  respondent and his election agent containing totally false,
G defamatory, incorrect and baseless allegations, deliberately
  intended to lower the dignity, status, reputation and personality
  of the petitioner amongst the voters of his constituency.
  According to the averments made by the appellant in paragraph
  6 of the election petition, the said notice/newspaper was
H published at the Mathrubhumi Press, Kozhikode in the name
      K.K. RAMACHANDRAN MASTER v. M.V.                      725
     SREYAMAKUMAR & ORS. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
of one Rasheed whose age and address is not known to the A
appellant but who according to the publication was said to be
the Joint Secretary, Media Trust, Sulthan Bathey. The averments
made by the appellant in the election petition further state that
one Mr. M.P. Veerendrakumar, the father of the respondent
No.1 is the Managing Director of "Mathurbhumi" Daily in whose B
press the aforementioned notice/newspaper titled
'Janasabdam' was published. It is also the case of the
appellant ~hat although only 35 thousand copies of the notice
are said to have been printed but actually as many as 1,20,000
copies were printed, published and distributed from door to       c
door in all the nooks and corners of the constituency by the first
respondent, his election agent and other agents and active
workers. The election petition finds fault with the publication of
the said notice/newspaper on several counts. Firstly, it is alleged
 that the notice/newspaper carried a news item under the title D
 "The Health Minister directly do priest hood for bribe" in which
 the appellant was accused of bribery in connection with the
 appointment of part time sweepers in Health Service
 Department in Wynad District. The news item read that the
 appellant had demanded Rs.25,000 to Rs.50,000 for providing
                                                                    E
 appointments and another amount of Rs.25,000 to Rs.50,000
 for regularizing such appointments. The news item alleged that
 the appellant had entrusted his Additional Private Secretary
 with the duty of collecting the bribe amount from the candidates.
 The statements made in the newspaper were, according to the
 appellant, totally baseless and deliberately cooked up with a F
 view to lowering the dignity and status of the appellant in the
 estimation of the electorate by tarnishing the image of the
 appellant and thereby with a view to gaining undue advantage
 for respondent No.1 in the election process.
                                                                    G
       15. Secondly, it finds fault with the publication
 aforementioned in as much as the same carried a news item
 under the heading 'The representative of people who brought
 shame to Wynad' under which caption it was alleged that the
 Kerala Lok Ayukta had prima facie found a case against the H
    726      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 7 S.C.R.


A appellant and issued a notice to him. According to the
  appellant, the Lok Ayukta had found a prima facie case against
  the appellant but the same was in utter violation of the principles
  of natural justice and without affording any opportunity of being
  heard to the petitioner. The Division Bench of the High Court
B of Kerala had, therefore, stayed the finding of the Lok Ayukta
  which stay order was in force even on the date of the filing of
  the petition. The appellant alleged that the publication of the
  news item in 'Janasabdam' referred to above created a strong
  impression in the mind of an average person that the appellant
c was a very corrupt, wicked and crooked person, not committed
  to the welfare of the people.

       16. Thirdly, the appellant found fault with the publication of
  a news item in the very same newspaper/notice under the title
  'The phone call that trapped the Minister'. The appellant alleged
D that he never sought any assistance or issued any direction to
  the OMO at any juncture and that he had never threatened or
  coerced the officer over the mobile phone as was alleged in
  the said news item. So also the news item under the caption
  'Be aware! Bigger than bitten is in the hole' and 'The game has
E to be played is not the game already played' were highly
  defamatory and deliberately made to tarnish the dignity and
  status of the appellant in the minds of the voters and to
  prejudicially affect the prospects of his election schedule to be
  held on 29th April, 2006.
F
        17. A reading of the averments made in paragraphs 13
  to 23 of the election petition would show that the same gave
  particulars of how the published material was transported from
  Kozikode to the residential house of the first respondent at
G Puliyarmala in Kalpetta by 11.30 p.m. on 26th April, 2006 and
  how the same were split into small bundles consisting of 80 to
  100 copies per bundle and how 8 to 12 bundles each were
  distributed among 143 booths of the constituency on 28th April,
  2006 between 8.00 a.m. to 5.15 p.m. by the first respondent,
  his election agent, polling agents, other agents, workers and
H
      K.K. RAMACHANDRAN MASTER v. M.V.                       727
     SREYAMAKUMAR & ORS. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
campaigners with the consent and connivance of the first             A
respondent. The averments in these paragraphs not only give
the registration numbers of the vehicles in which the material
was transported but also the names of the persons who actually
distributed the said material amongst the voters of the
constituency. The names of the persons who informed the              B
appellant about the distribution of the printed material have also
been indicated by the appellant in sufficient details. For
instance, according to the averments made in paragraph 14
of the petition at booth no.120 of the constituency, the printed
material referred to earlier was distributed to various houses       c
by one Mr. Ealias son of Ouseph, Kunnathukudy House,
Trikkaipatta, Meppady, Wynad District and by others named in
the said paragraph. This distribution work was, according to
the appellant, with the consent and connivance of respondent
 No.1. So also details of the printed material at other booths in
                                                                     0
the constituency and other members relating to the distribution
of the said material have been set out in sufficient detail in
 paragraphs 15 to 23. The election petition specifically alleges
that the printing, publication and distribution of the material by
the first respondent, his election agent and other agents,
                                                                     E
 workers and campaigners was with his consent and connivance
which materially affected the result of the election in so far as
 the same concerned the appellant and the returned candidate.

     18. Apart from the publication of the notice titled
"Janasabdam" the election petition also refers to publication        F
of an incorrect, baseless and false news item in 'Mathrubhumi
Daily' dated 28th April, 2006 at the instance of the respondent
by Shri M.P. Veerendrakumar, the father of the said
respondent under the caption 'MLA cancels the consented
works'. Paragraph 29 of the election petition specifically           G
alleged that the said publication was at the instance of the first
respondent in which it was falsely alleged that the appellant had
cancelled the sanction granted for effecting improvements to
four roads, under the Special Development Fund. The petition
alleged that the four roads mentioned passed through more            H
    728      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [201 OJ 7 S.C.R.


A than 10 booths of the constituency of Kalpetta Legislative
  Constituency of which 14000 people of the constituency were
  regular beneficiaries/users. The appellant alleged that the
  publication of the baseless and false news item on the eve of
  the election scheduled to be held on 29th April, 2006 without
B affording an opportunity to explain the real facts to the public
  as well as to the affected voters was totally mala fide and was
  calcuiated to prejudicially affect his election prospects. Another
  publication made in Mathrubhumi Daily issue dated 29th April,
  2006 under the caption 'Allegations by Priest against former
c Minister Ramachandran' were also, according to the appellant,
  false and made at the instance of the first respondent. In the
  said news item the appellant had been accused of demanding
  rupees one lakh from a UD Clerk in the Primary Health Centre
  also working as Priest of Moolamattom St. George Orthodox
  Church. The petition alleged that the allegation that the appellant
0
  had demanded bribe from the said person who was suspended
  from service by the Health Services Authorities upon
  inspection, was totally false, baseless and cooked up at the
  instance of the first respondent and published in the
  Mathrubhumi at his instance. The appellant alleged that the
E publication of such a damaging news item which was totally
  false, baseless and motivated on the eve of the election was
  intended to cause irreparable loss to the appellant by creating
  confusion and doubts about his character, personality and
  dignity in the minds of the electorate city those belonging to
F Christian faith. The petition also refers to the publication of a
  photograph of Fr. George Vakkanampadam in the cassock to
  create emotional distress for the Christian electorate by giving
  an impiession as though the appellant had not only illegally
  suspended but also demanded bribe from the said Mr.
G Vakkanampadam and delayed completion of the disciplinary
  proceedings against him. The appellant alleged that publication
  of the news item was mala fide and intended to prejudice his
  electoral prospects.

H         19. The election petition further alleged that another news
       K.K. RAMACHANDRAN MASTER v. M.V.                        729
      SREYAMAKUMAR & ORS. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]

  item published in the 'Deshabhimani Daily dated 6th April,           A
  2006 with the title 'What is happening at the Kalpetta is the
  people's trial against corruption - Sreyamskumar' in which the
  first respondent is alleged to have accused the appellant of
  indulging in corrupt practices throughout. The election petition
  alleged that the publication of the said news item was mala fide     B
· and with intention to cause prejudice and harassment to the
  petitioner and to secure undue advantage to the first
  respondent.

       20. Apart from the publication mentioned above the              C
 appellant also accused the first respondent of making a false
 statement in a public speech delivered by him on 27th April,
 2006 in which the first respondent delivered a talk at Kalpetta
 near the bus stand attended by 500 persons at 4.30 p.m.
 alleging that the Lok Ayukta had issued a direction to arrest
 and produce the appellant on 6th June, 2006 and his arrest was        D
 delayed due only to the ensuing election. The election petition
 also alleged that a similar talk was delivered by Mr. U.A.
 Khader, Councillor, Kalpetta Municipality, who was actively
 supporting the first respondent and by Shri V.P. Varkey son of
 Paily, Vattathody House, Vazhavatta P.O., Wynad who was               E
 functioning as the District President of Kisan Janata of Wynad
 for and on behalf of the first respondent, as duly authorized by
 the first respondent. The election petition also referred to a talk
 delivered by Shri K.K. Hamsa, who is the State General
 Secretary of Janata Dal (S) at Meppady town on 27th April,            F
 2006 alleging that Lok Ayukta had issued an arrest warrant
 against the appellant. The persons who informed the appellant
 about the said talks allegedly containing accusations against
 the appellant have also been set out in the election petition.
                                                                       G
      21. We do not consider it necessary to refer in further
 details to the specific averments made by the appellant in
 support of the charge that respondent No.1 had committed
 corrupt practices within the meaning of Section 123(4) of the
 Representation of People Act. All that we need to say is that         H
   730       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010) 7 S.C.R.


A the averments made in the election petition sufficiently disclose
  a cause of action. The averments set out the material facts &
  give sufficient particulars that would justify the grant of an
  opportunity to the appellant to prove his allegations. In as much
  as the High Court found otherwise, it in our opinion, committed
B a mistake. At any rate if there was any deficiency in the
  particulars required to be furnished in terms of Section 83(b)
  of the Act the High Court could and indeed ought to have
  directed the petitioner to disclose and provide the same with
  a view to preventing any miscarriage of ;ustice on account of
c non-disclosure of the same. So long the material facts had been
  stated, which were stated in the present case, the absence of
  particulars, if any, could not justify dismissal of the petition by
  the High Court.

       22. Wha! is stated above is true even in regard to the
D averments made by the appellant in paragraphs 25 and 26 of
  the election petition wherein the appellant had accused the first
  respondent of committing a corrupt practice within the meaning
  of Section 123(5) of the Act. Section 123(5) makes hiring and
  securing of vehicles whether on payment or otherwise for the
E free conveyance of any elector to and from any polling station
  with the consent of a candidate or his election agent, a corrupt
  practice. Paragraph 25 and 26 of the election petition
  specifically allege that the first respondent, his election agent
  and other agents and workers had secured vehicles for
F transport of the voters to and fro polling stations contrary to
  Section 123(5) of the Act. The averments made in the said
  paragraphs not only give the registration numbers but also the
  names of the owners/drivers of the vehicles used for providing
  free transport of the voters of different booths indicated in the
G said paragraphs. The averments made in the paragraphs 25
  and 26 of the election petition constitute a statement of material
  facts required in terms of Section 83A of the Act. Although the
  particulars given in the said paragraphs, in our opinion, give
  rise to justify a trial yet if there were any deficiency in the
H disclosure of the particulars the High Court could direct the
      K.K. RAMACHANDRAN MASTER v. M.V.                          731
     SREYAMAKUMAR & ORS. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
petitioner to furnish the said particulars. Dismissal of the petition   A
on the ground that the averments did not constitute material
facts and did not give rise to a complete cause of action was
not a correct appreciation of the said averments.

      23. The same is true even in regard to the averments
                                                                        8
made in paragraph 35 of the election petition in which the
petitioner had alleged that the respondent No.1 had committed
a corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123(6) of the
Act by incurring or authorizing expenditure in contravention of
Section 77. In paragraph 35 of the election petition the
appellant had clearly alleged that the first respondent had spent       C
an amount of Rs.78 lakhs for his election as against the outer
limit of Rs.10 lakhs stipulated under Section 77 of the Act read
with Rule 90 of the Election Rules, 1961. The averments
disclosed in sufficient details the basis on which the said
allegation was made.                                                    D

      24. In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the
impugned order of the High Court and remand the matter back
to the High Court for disposal of the election petition in
accordance with the law keeping in view the observations made           E
hereinabove. We make it clear that anything said by us in the
foregoing paras of this judgment shall not be understood as
expression of any final opinion on the merits of the case set
up by the appellant or the defense set up by the respondent
No.1. The observations made hereinabove are limited to the              F
determination of the question whether the High Court was
justified in dismissing the election petition at the threshold as
it did. The parties are directed to appear before the High Court
for further directions on 6th September, 2010. No costs.

D.G.                                              Appeal allowed.