High Courts Can Grant Leave To File 'Replication' In Election Petitions: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that a High Court is empowered to grant leave to an election petitioner to file a replication in exercise of its powers under Order VIII Rule 9 of the CPC.
Sheikh Noorul Hassan had filed an appeal directed against the order of the High Court of Manipur which granted leave to Nahakpam Indrajit Singh to file a replication in answer to the new facts asserted in the written statement filed by the returned candidate, the appellant.
The Bench explained that by virtue of the provisions of Section 87 (1) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 (the Act), a High Court, acting as an Election Tribunal, subject to the provisions of the Act, was vested with all the powers which were vested in a civil court under the CPC.
Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra observed, “By virtue of the provisions of Section 87 (1) of the 1951 Act, the High Court, acting as an Election Tribunal, subject to the provisions of the 1951 Act and the rules made thereunder, is vested with all such powers as are vested in a civil court under the CPC. Therefore, in exercise of its powers under Order VIII Rule 9 of the CPC, it is empowered to grant leave to an election petitioner to file a replication…However, such leave is not to be granted mechanically. The Court before granting leave must consider the averments made in the plaint/election petition, the written statement and the replication.”
Sr. Advocate Shyam Divan represented the appellant, while Sr. Advocate Anupam Lal Das appeared for the respondents.
Sheikh Noorul Hassan argued that the remedy of an election petition was a statutory remedy governed by the provisions of the Act. There were no provisions in the Act for filing a replication in response to a written statement. Hence, there was no foundation in law for the impugned order of the High Court.
The Supreme Court had to determine whether during the course of the proceedings of an election petition, preferred under the provisions of the Act, subsequent pleading, as envisaged in Order VIII Rule 9 CPC was permissible.
The Bench explained that Rule 9 of Order VIII specifically edicted that no pleading subsequent to the written statement of a defendant other than by way of defence to set off or counter-claim can be presented except by the leave of the Court.
The Court analysed the provisions of the Act regarding the trial of election petitions and the powers of the High Court in this regard. It discussed the necessity of pleadings in election petitions, the role of replication, and the limitations on introducing new facts or causes of action.
It was concluded that the replication in this case was justified as it aimed to address the explanations provided in the written statement, without introducing new material facts or causes of action.
“Similarly, the reply in the written statement in respect of other material facts pleaded in the election petition was sought to be dealt with, by way of explanation, in the replication. The replication does not seek to incorporate any new material facts or a new cause of action to question the election. It only seeks to explain the averments made in the written statement,” the Court held.
Finally, the Court explained that “while considering grant of leave, the Court must bear in mind that,— (a) a replication is not needed to merely traverse facts pleaded in the written statement; (b) a replication is not a substitute for an amendment; and (c) a new cause of action or plea inconsistent with the plea taken in original petition/plaint is not to be permitted in the replication.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title: Sheikh Noorul Hassan v. Nahakpam Indrajit Singh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 391)
Appearance:
Appellant: Sr. Advocate Shyam Divan; AOR Rakesh Kumar
Respondents: Sr. Advocate Anupam Lal Das; AOR Rajkumari Banju; Advocates David Ahongsangbam, S Gunabanta Meitei, B R Sharma, Raj Singh, Mohan Singh and Sanajaoba Pheiroijam
