The Supreme Court of India has ruled that an election petition should not be dismissed at the very threshold if there is “substantial compliance” with the legal requirements. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, came in the case of Kimneo Haokip Hangshing v. Kenn Raikhan & Ors., setting a significant precedent in the context of election law.
Background of the Case
The appellant, Kimneo Haokip Hangshing, is a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) from the 46-Saikul Assembly Constituency in Manipur. Hangshing was elected during the 12th General Elections to the Manipur Legislative Assembly in 2022. The respondent, Kenn Raikhan, who also contested the election, challenged the results by filing an election petition in the High Court of Manipur. The primary grounds for the challenge were allegations of non-disclosure of assets by the appellant in her nomination papers and accusations of indulging in corrupt practices.
Legal Issues Involved
Hangshing filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) read with Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA), seeking rejection of the election petition on the grounds that it did not disclose any cause of action and failed to meet the statutory requirements outlined in Section 83 of the RPA. The High Court of Manipur dismissed her application, stating that the issues raised required a detailed trial to examine the evidence, prompting Hangshing to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Key Observations and Decision by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court, while hearing the appeal, upheld the decision of the High Court, emphasizing the importance of “substantial compliance” over “strict adherence” in the context of election petitions. The Court observed, “An election petition should not be rejected at the very threshold where there is substantial compliance of the provisions,” indicating that even if there are minor lapses in the procedural requirements, they should not warrant an outright dismissal if the petition fundamentally adheres to the necessary legal standards.
The Court further noted that the case raised a “triable issue” concerning the alleged concealment of assets by Hangshing and whether her nomination papers were improperly accepted. It highlighted that these issues required thorough examination and could not be dismissed summarily without a proper trial.
Relevant Case Laws and Precedents
The Court referred to several precedents, including the case of G.M. Siddeshwar v. Prasanna Kumar (2013) 4 SCC 776, where it was established that an election petition should not be dismissed solely based on technical deficiencies if there is substantial compliance with the statutory requirements. In a similar vein, the recent case of Thangjam Arunkumar v. Yumkham Erabot Singh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1058 from Manipur was cited, where the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to dismiss an Order VII Rule 11 application in an election petition on the grounds of substantial compliance.
Quotes from the Judgment
Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, writing for the bench, stated: “The settled position of law here is that an election petition should not be rejected at the very threshold where there is a substantial compliance of the provisions.” He further observed, “The requirements of the law are to ensure a fair trial, and any deviation that does not affect the core of the petition should not lead to its dismissal at the outset.”
Case Title: Kimneo Haokip Hangshing v. Kenn Raikhan & Ors
