Madras HC Dismisses Congress Leader Manickam Tagore's Plea Seeking Rejection Of Election Petition Challenging His 2024 Lok Sabha Polls Victory

Justice N Sathish Kumar observed that the disputed issues had to be tried with reference to the documents and evidence to be produced by the parties. The court added that it could not decide the disputed facts and issues at the stage of rejecting the election petition as it could not form an opinion at that stage. Noting that the exercise has to be done by the court at the time of dealing with the election petition and noting that there were allegations with regard to provisions of the Representation of Peoples Act, the court was not inclined to reject the election petition.

“When there are prima facie allegations, which all are made and such allegations are traceable with reference to the provisions of the Representation of the Peoples Act, then the Courts would not reject the Election Petition in limine, but to proceed for trial, which would be appropriate in the interest of justice. This being the principles, this Court is of an opinion that rejection of the Election Petition is unacceptable and accordingly, this Court is inclined to proceed with the Election Petition in accord with the principles,” the court observed.

Background

Vijaya Prabakaran of the Desiya Murpokku Dravida Kazhagam filed an Election Petition challenging the election from the Virudhunagar parliamentary constituency. It was argued that Tagore had suppressed material facts in the nomination paper regarding his assets and criminal antecedents. Prabakaran also argued that there were other malpractices during the election including bribing of voters, non-erasure of mock poll votes, booth capturing, stoppage of vote counting, expenditure in excess of the amount prescribed by the ECI, and other malpractices during the counting of the postal ballots.

When the summons in the Election Petition was served on Tagore, he filed the application seeking to strike out certain paragraphs from the Election Petition and to dismiss the Election Petition. Tagore argued that the affidavit in support of the election petition did not disclose any cause of action. It was argued that the petition was vague, lacked precision, was unspecific, ambiguous, and irrelevant. It was also submitted that the petition was scandalous and was an abuse of the process of law. It was argued that non-compliance of the mandatory requirements under the provisions of the Representation of Peoples Act warrants rejection of the election petition.

On the other hand, Prabakaran submitted that the election petition disclosed the cause of action and material facts, including particulars. It was submitted that the allegations were relevant and essential to grant relief under the RP Act. He added there was no ground to strike off the pleadings or to reject the election petition. It was further submitted that the election petition had to be read in toto and not in isolated paragraphs. It was contended that the non supply of the materials itself in the election petition is not a ground for rejecting the petition under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

The court noted that while the court had the power to strike out pleadings even before filing of the written statement under Order Vi Rule 16 and Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the present election petition did not attract any of the conditions to strike off the pleadings. The court noted that the election petition, in its entirety, disclosed a cause of action, and there were no scandalous or vexatious pleadings.

The court added that whether the election petition disclosed any cause of action and whether it was barred by law had to be looked into based on the averments in the election petition and not the defence. The court observed that the strength or weakness of the case could not be looked into at such a stage and the election petition could not be rejected on the basis of the allegations made in the written statement.

“The well settled position is that while considering the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, Court is not required to take into consideration the defence set up by the respondent in his written statement or other documents. The question whether election petition discloses any cause of action and whether it is barred by the law is to be decided by looking at the averments contained in the election petition itself and not the defence set up in the written statement. While considering the application, the strength or weakness of the case of the election petition is not to be examined. The election petition cannot be rejected on the basis of the allegations made in written statement or in an application for rejection of the election petition,” the court said.

Thus, noting that the election petition was not vague or bereft of material facts, the court was not inclined to reject it and hence dismissed the applications filed by Tagore.

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr. Abdul Saleem, Senior Counsel for Mr.S. Elambharathi

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. N.C.Ashok Kumar, Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan for M/s.G.R.Associates, Mr.Chevanan Mohan for M/s.Viruksham Legal, Mr.S.Shyam Kumar

Case Title: B Manickam Tagore v. V Vijaya Prabakaran and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 87

Case No: O.A.Nos.921 & 922 of 2024 in E.L.P.No.4 of 2024