Supreme Court Affirms Bombay HC's Deletion Of Certain Allegations Made Against Union Minister Nitin Gadkari In 2019 Election Petition

The Supreme Court today dismissed petitions filed in 2021 against a Bombay High Court decision, which struck off certain allegations made against Union Minister Nitin Jairam Gadkari in an election petition challenging his election pursuant to the 2019 Lok Sabha polls.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh was dealing with two special leave petitions - one, filed by Nafis Khan, a voter in the Nagpur constituency, and second, filed by candidates who contested against Gadkari in the 2019 polls.

The Court noted that Gadkari's tenure pursuant to his election in the 2019 polls was already over and he was again elected in the 2024 Lok Sabha polls. Be that as it may, the parties were heard. After hearing the submissions, the Court concurred with the reasoning of the High Court and opined that there was no ground to interfere with the impugned order.

To put briefly, the High Court, while refusing to quash the election petition disputing Gadkari's election to Lok Sabha from the Nagpur constituency in 2019, had partly allowed an application under Order 6 Rule 16 CPC and struck down the pleadings raised in several paragraphs of the petition with respect to the income earned by the family members of the Minister and land owned by them. There were also allegations regarding the expenditure made during the 2019 General Elections.

Background

Nafis Khan, an elector from the Nagpur constituency, accused Gadkari, the Union Minister for Road Transport and Highways, of submitting false information in his nomination form and election affidavit. He challenged Gadkari's election in the 17th Lok Sabha polls under Sections 100(1)(b) and Sub-clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) of Section 100(1)(d) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and urged the High Court to set it aside.

A Single Bench of the Bombay High Court refused to quash the election petition, observing that two points in Khan's prayer (with regard to the land solely owned by Gadkari and the declaration of agriculture as his source of income) "disclosed material facts and necessary cause of action". "As a result of this adjudication the prayer made in Civil Application No. 12/2021 seeking rejection of the election petition cannot be granted", it held.

However, the bench proceeded to strike down other prayers in the petition, partly allowing an application moved by Gadkari under Order 6 Rule 16 CPC. This provision permits the court, at any stage of the proceedings, to strike out any matter in the pleading which may be "unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous, vexatious or prejudicial or otherwise appears to be an abuse of the process of the court".

"The election petition consequently would proceed for trial on the basis of the averments that remain after the paragraphs as directed to be struck off are so struck off," the bench said.

Challenging the High Court decision, Khan approached the Supreme Court. The crux of his case was that the High Court erred by striking out relevant pleadings when he had not offended the rules of pleadings and had raised arguable issues. It was also urged that the power to strike out pleadings is extraordinary and must be exercised by the court sparingly and "with extreme care, caution and circumspection". In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision in Sathi Vijay Kumar v. Tota Singh [(2006) 13 SCC 353].

On whether the pleadings that were purged by the High Court disclosed a "reasonable cause of action", Khan relied on Mohan Rawale v. Damodar Tatyaba [(1994) 2 SCC 392] and urged that as long as the claim disclosed some cause of action or raised some questions fit to be decided by a Judge, the mere fact that the case was weak and not likely to succeed was no ground for striking it out. Further, he claimed that the Single bench had failed to read the pleadings as a whole to ascertain the true import of the allegations, and as such, deviated from settled principles.

On September 16, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising then Justice AS Bopanna and Justice PS Narasimha, issued notice on the limited point as to whether the pleadings were liable to be purged by the High Court.

Appearance: Advocate Shakul Ghatole and AoR Pai Amit (for petitioner); Senior Advocate Shekhar Naphade (for respondent)

Case Title: MD. NAFIS v. NITIN JAIRAM GADKARI, SLP(C) No.12480/2021 (and connected case) 

Click Here To Read/Download Order