MOHD. AKBAR vs. ASHOK SAHU .

Non-Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2538-40 OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 2487-2489 of 2015) Mohd. Akbar ...Appellant

contesting candidates for 72-Kawardha Legislative Assembly JUDGMENT Constituency.

on 8.12.2013. First respondent was declared elected. The appellant secured the second highest number of votes in the said election. On 20.1.2014, the appellant filed Election Petition No. 4 of 2014 challenging the election of the first respondent on various grounds including the commission of 1 Page 1 certain corrupt practices. On 29.1.2014, the High Court issued summons to the respondents.

Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC”) and another raising JUDGMENT certain preliminary objections to the maintainability of the election petition.

be filed, one each at the instance of respondent No. 1 and 10 seeking extension of time for filing the written statement. The said applications were allowed and the High Court granted another 30 days’ time for filing the written statement. 2 Page 2

adjournments, the details of which may not be necessary for the purpose of this order. Eventually, arguments on Order VII

was the Judge hearing the Election Petition. Justice Manindra

our opinion rightly. On such recusal, the election petition was allotted to another learned Judge.

appearance by the above-mentioned Ashish Srivastav was made to the Hon’ble Chief Justice. The election petition was further adjourned. 3 Page 3

under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. But, the counsel for respondent No. 8, Shri Ashish Srivastava filed an application

instant SLP came to be filed complaining that notwithstanding JUDGMENT the mandate of Section 86, sub-Section (7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the High Court has not disposed of the election petition so far. Section 86, sub- Section (7) reads as follows:-

4 Page 4

disputes under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 should be resolved expeditiously. The purpose is obvious. The tenure of the members of the Parliament as well as the

for a day is most undesirable. Such continuance affords an JUDGMENT opportunity to such a member to take part in the law making process affecting the destinies of the people.

candidates, unless the rights and the obligations are decided within a reasonable time, the adjudication and the consequences of the adjudication may eventually remain on paper without any tangible effect insofar as the participation of such parties in the legislative process. 5 Page 5

of election disputes in this country takes unacceptably long periods in most of the cases. Very rarely an election dispute

technical. Therefore, there is always scope for lot of objections and cross-objections regarding every step in the conduct of the election petition.

Court for resolution of the election disputes is another 6 Page 6 factor which contributes enormously to the delay in the adjudicatory process.

brought before the High Court. We only gently remind that the JUDGMENT kind of delay in the adjudication of election disputes exposes the High Court’s unpleasant criticism damaging the credibility of the institution. A situation which is certainly required to be avoided at any cost.

after the election, the trial of the election petition has not yet commenced. In the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to 7 Page 7 request the Chief Justice to take necessary steps for disposal of the Election Petition No. 4 of 2014 expeditiously, by devising such appropriate measures as the Hon’ble Chief Justice may deem fit and proper in the circumstances.

…….………………………. J . (Rohinton Fali Nariman) New Delhi; February 27, 2015 JUDGMENT 8 Page 8