The Delhi High Court dismissed an election petition challenging the 2020 election of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Manish Sisodia from the Patparganj Assembly constituency, holding that the petition lacked material facts and failed to disclose a legally sustainable cause of action under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (“RP Act”).
The case arose from a petition filed under Sections 33A, 80, 81, 125, 126, read with Section 100 of the RP Act. The petitioner contested the election from the same constituency, alleging violations of Section 126 of the RP Act due to the continued display of election material during the prohibited 48-hour silence period and suppression of an FIR in Sisodia’s nomination affidavit under Section 33A of the Act.
The respondent, Manish Sisodia, moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking rejection of the election petition on the ground that it did not disclose a cause of action and failed to plead material facts as required under Sections 81, 83 and 100 of the RP Act.
Allowing the respondent’s application, Justice Jasmeet Singh reiterated that an election petition entails judicial interference with the popular mandate and must therefore strictly comply with statutory requirements. The Court held that the petition contained only vague and general allegations and failed to plead how the alleged violations had materially affected the election result, a mandatory requirement under Section 100(1)(d) of the RP Act.
On the allegation of concealment of the FIR, the Court clarified that mere registration of an FIR does not trigger the obligation of disclosure under Section 33A. The statutory duty arises only when charges are framed or cognizance is taken by a competent court. In the absence of either, and in the absence of pleadings showing knowledge of the FIR, non-disclosure could not be treated as suppression of material facts.
The Court also rejected the allegation of violation of Section 126, holding that generic party hoardings without reference to the candidate do not amount to prohibited election propaganda. It further noted that the petition failed to plead specificity that these hoardings were erected, installed, or published with the knowledge, consent, or authorisation of the respondent.
Concluding that the election petition failed to establish a specific cause of action as required in terms of Section 83 read with Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and Section 100 of the RP Act, the court dismissed the petition.
Appearances
Pratap Chandra, Petitioner-in-Person
Gautam Narayan, Senior Advocate, with Rishikesh Kumar, Asmita, Mohd. Irsad, Karan Sharma, Sheenupriya, Rajat Jain and Abhiram Venugopal, Advocates for Manish Sisodia
