PUKHREM SHARATCHANDRA SINGHversusMAIREMBAM PRITHVIRAJ@ PRITHIBIRAJ SINGH

                   [2015] 10 S.C.R. 591


          PUKHREM SHARATCHANDRA SINGH                            A
                              v.
     MAIREMBAM PRITHVIRAJ@ PRITHIBIRAJ SINGH
               (Civil Appeal No.8063 of 2015)
                    OCTOBER 01, 2015                             B

      [DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.]

      Representation of the People Act, 1951: s.86(7) -
Election petition - Delay in disposal of election petition -     C
Role of Election Tribunal - Respondent-elected candidate
filed written statement two years after the main election
petition - Adjournment was sought by respondent from
time to time - Appeal by election petitioner challenging
the manner in which the trial was conducted an__d the dilatory
                                                                 0
tactics adopted by the respondent to delay the hearing of
the election petition - Held: 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·- As per s. 86(7) of the Act, the Court has to        E
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 - In the case at hand, the elected candidate
has been taking time at his own pleasure and leisure and         F
filing applications as he desired giving vent to his whim
and fancy and the Court has granted adjournment in an
extremely liberal manner - This kind of attitude has to be
curbed from all angles because law does not countenance
.~                                                               G
     Disposing of the appeal, the Court

    HELD: The fundamental purpose for expeditious
disposal of an election petition is to sustain the purity        H
                             591
592      SUPREME COURT REPORT'S            [2015) 10 S.C.R.

A of parliamentary democracy. 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
B 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
C law does not countenance it. 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. The election petition pending before the
0
  High Court has to be decided with extreme alertness
  and in quite promptitude. As the court has no.t framed
  issues, it shall proceed to frame issues. Thereafter, the
  evidence shall commence and the court shall, regard
E being had to the statutory command and the norms in
  a democratic polity, dispose of the election petition by
  end of February 2016. [Paras 16, 19 and 20l [601-F;
  603-A-F]
                                    "F


        Satya Narain v. Dhuja Ram 1974 (3) SCR 20:
F
        (1974) 4 SCC 237;P. Na/la Thampy Thera.v. B.L.
        Shanker1984SCR687: (1984) Supp. SCC 631;
        F.A. Sapa v. Singora 1991 (2) SCR 752: (1991) 3
        SCC 375; Rameshwar Prasad and others v. Union
G       of India and another 2006 (1) SCR 562: (2006) 2
        SCC 1; Manoj Narula v. Union of India (2014) 9
        SCC 1; Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election
        Commissioner1978 (2) SCR ~72: (1978) 1 SCC
        405 - relied on.              ·
H
 PUKHREM SHARATCHANDRASINGH v. MAIREMBAM                        593
       PRITHVIRAJ@ PRITHIBIRAJ SINGH

                      Case Law Reference                        A

   1974 (3) SCR 20           relied on.         Para 11

   1984 SCR 687              relied on.         Para 12

   1991 (2) SCR 752          relied on.         Para 13         B

   2006 (1) SCR 562          relied on.         Para 16

   (2014) 9   sec 1          relied on.         Para 17

   1978 (2) SCR 272          relied on.         Para 18         c
   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
8063 of 2015

    From the Judgment and Order dated 25.03.2015 of the         o
High Court of Manipur at Imphal in Election Petition No. 1 of
2012.

    N. Kumarjit, Lenin Hijam, S. Gowthaman for the Appellant.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                  E

    DIPAK MISRA, J. 1. 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 F
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 G
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· H
not even been able to frame issues lest proceed with the trial,
594         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2015) 10 S.C.R.


A  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
 B the challenge to his election. As it appears, he does not perceive
   the pend ency 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.
 C 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 1Oth Manipur Legislative Assembly Election
 D    from he said Constituency. The election for the 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
 E    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
 F    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
 G    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 bytheElection Commission
      of India. The Returning Officer,after affording an opportunity
 H    of hearing, declined to reject the nomination. After the election
 PUKHREM SHARATCHANDRASINGH v. MAIREMBAM                          595
 PRITHVIRAJ@ PRITHIBIRAJ SINGH [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

was over, the counting of votes took place and the respondent A
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 B
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 C
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       o
     Petition No. 1 of 2012 - filed on 27-06-2012 and the
     same is pending.

     2. Misc. Case (EP) No. 4 of 2012 for amendment of his
     application in Misc. Case (EP) No. 1 of 2012. The same       E
     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.
                                                                  F
     4. Misc. Case (EP) No. 5 of2014 filed by the respondent
     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                G
     respondent for condoning the delay in filing the written
     statement was allowed on 02-06-2014.

     6. On 02-06-2014 filed another misc. application i.e.
     Misc. Case (EP) No. 6 of 2014 for dismissing the             H
596         SUPREME COURT REPORTS.                 [2015] 10 S.C.R.



A          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 condonation
 8         of delay in filing the misc. application again for
           amendment of the misc. applicatiqn in Misc. Case (EP)
           No. 1 of2012 was allowed on 09-09-2014.

           8. Misc. Case (EP) No. 9 of 2014 filed for amendment of
c          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.
 D
           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."
 E
          4. At this juncture, it is relevant to mention that the High
      Court while dealing with M.C. No. 4 of 2012 whereby the
      respondent had sought amendment to his preliminary objection
      pertaining to the maintainability of the election petition had
 F    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:-
 G
           "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 of2012 clearly shows
 H    .    that the appellant has claimed that the Election Petition
 PUKHREM SHARATCHANDRASINGH v. MAIREMBAM                         597
 PRITHVIRAJ@ PRITHIBIRAJ SINGH [DI PAK MISRA, J.]

     is not signed by the election petitioner/respondent herein. A
     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       B
     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. ft is asserted
in the memorandum of appeal that the respondent filed Misc. c
Case E.P. No. 1 of 2013 for impleading the 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 D
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 fifed an application forming the subject matter of Misc. E
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 evincibfe from the admission made in the written
statement. The matter was adjourned from time to time. Hence, F
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.
                                                                   G
       7. When the matter was listed on the first occasion, we
had issued notice fixing a returnable date. Despite service of
notice, no one has entered appearance on behalf of the
respondent.
                                                                   H
598         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015) 10 S.C.R.


A         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
 B         has been submitted by Mr. lswarlal, 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
 C         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
 o         with the Election Petition. However, Mr. Kurnarjit, 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."

 E      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
 F provision contained in Section 86(7) of 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
 G 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
 H also apprised this Court that issues have not been framed.
    PUKHREM SHARATCHAl\IORASINGH v. MAIREMBAM                          599
    PRITHVIRAJ@ PRITHIBIRAJ SINGH [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

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

        "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
                                                                       8
        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 three-
Judge Bench in Satya Narain v. Dhuja Ram1 has observed                 C
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 D
        candidate is challenged under the Act. expeditious trial
        of the election dispute is sought to be enforced by the
        Legislature making all safeguards against delay. Trial has
        to be necessarily expedited to rid the candidate as well
        as the constituency interested in the result of the election. E
        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 petition, by Section 86(b) "the F
        trial of an election petition 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 G
        be recorded''. Again under Section 86(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 on which the election petition is
1
    (1974) 4 sec 237                                                   H
600         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2015] 10 S.C.R.


A          prasented 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 Evidence Act only subject to the
 B         Acts. Therefore, there is no scope for free play in the
           application of the provisions of those two Acts. The verv
           object of expeditious trial will be defeated if the
           presentation of the electioh petition should be treated
           casually and lightly permitting all kinds of devices to delay
c          the ultimate trial. The purpose of endosing 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
 D
           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
 E         which we are mainly concerned in this appeal is a
           peremptory provision and total non-compliance with the
           same will entail dismissal of the election petition under
           Section 86 of the Act."
                                                   [Emphasis supplied]
 F
           12. In P. Na/la Thampy Thera v. B.L. Shanker, this Court
      while dealing with the justification of granting one adjournment
      opined as follows:-
          "The High Court was justified in giving only one
G         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 required by Section 86(7) of the Act."
 H 2 (1984) supp. sec 631
  PUKHREM SHARATCHANDRASINGH v. MAIREMBAM                         601
  PRITHVIRAJ@ PRITHIBIRAJ SINGH [OIPAK MISRA, J.]

     13. In F.A. Sapa v. Singora3 , another three-Judge Bench, A
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.
                                                                   B
     14. From the aforesaid authorities, it is quite clear that an
election petition has to be decided in quite promptitude as
there is an o~ligation cast upon the Court to dispose of the
same within a period of six months. Eng rafting a provision in
the nature of Section 86(7) of the Act, the legislative intendment C
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.
                                                                  0
    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 E
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       F
election petition is to sustain the purity of parliamentary
democracy. The concept of purity of democracy has been
emphatically stated in Rameshwar Prasad and others v.
Union of India and another.
                                                                  G
    17. Recently, in Manoj Naru/a v. Union of/ndia5, majority
view in the Constitution Bench is to the following effect:-

'(1991) 3 sec 375
• (2006) 2 sec 1
'(2014) 9 sec 1                                                   H
602         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2015] 10 S.C.R.


A          "Democracy, which has been best defined as the
           government of the people, by the people and for the
           people, expects prevalence of genuine orderliness,
           positive propriety, dedicated discipline and sanguine
           sanctity by constant affirmance of constitutional morality
 B       ' which is the pillar stone of good governance. While
           dealing with the concept of democracy, the majority in
           Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain 1i, stated that
           "democracy" as an essential feature of the Constitution
           is unassailable. The said principle was reiterated in T.N.
 c         Seshan, CEC of India v. Union of lndia 7 and Ku/dip
           Nayar v. Union of /ndia 8 . It was pronQunced with
           asseveration that democracy is the basic and
           fundamental structure of the Constitution. There is no
           shadow of doubt that democracy in India is a product of
 D
           the rule of law and aspires to establish an egalitarian
           social order. It is not only a political philosophy but also
           an embodiment of constitutional philosophy."

      18. In Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chlef Election
 E Commissionef!, while laying emphasis on fundamental values
      of democracy which includes holding of free and fair election
      by adult franchise in a periodical manner, Krishna Iyer, J. quoted
      the statement of Sir Winston Chur~hill which is to the following
 F    effect:-

            "2 . ... 'At the bottom of all tributes paid to democracy 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 voluminous discussion can possibly
 G          diminish the overwhelming importance of the point."'

      • 1975 Supp sec 1
      '(1995) 4 sec 611
      • (2006) 7 sec 1 -
 H    • (1978) 1 sec 405
  PUKHREM SHARATCHANDRASINGH v. MAIREMBAM                           603
  PRITHVIRAJ@ PRITHIBIRAJ SINGH [DIPAK MISRA, J.)

     19. A voter casts his vote as a responsible citizen to A
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 B
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 C
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 pending
before the High Court has to be decided with extreme alertness D
and in quite promptitude. As the court has not framed issues,
it shall proceed to frame issues. Thereafter, the evidence shall
com!J1ence 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 E
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.     F

Devika Gujral                                 Appeal disposed of.