Election petitions lacking material facts and a complete cause of action must be rejected.

The election petitioner challenged Regupathy S.’s election from the Thirumayam Legislative Assembly Constituency, alleging irregularities in the counting of votes at specified polling stations and seeking inspection and recounting.

She also alleged that Regupathy had failed to disclose criminal cases in his 2026 nomination affidavit, despite having disclosed 26 cases in his 2021 affidavit.

Regupathy filed O.A. No. 917 of 2026 to strike out paragraphs 6–42 of the election petition and O.A. No. 918 of 2026 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject it, contending that it disclosed no material facts or cause of action.

Whether the election petition pleaded the material facts required by Sections 80, 80A, 81–84, 100 and 101 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Whether the pleaded allegations disclosed a sufficient cause of action to maintain the election petition.

Whether the petition was maintainable without pleading the nature and particulars of corrupt practice.

Whether the petition pleaded a ground under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, including how the result was materially affected.

Section 83(1)(a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 requires an election petition to contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies; where corrupt practice is alleged, Section 83(1)(b) requires full particulars.

Material facts are the primary facts necessary to establish a cause of action and to inform the opposing party of the case to be met; omission of a material fact may make the petition incomplete, and evidence cannot cure a foundational pleading defect.

The Court also applied Order VII Rule 11 CPC to determine whether the petition disclosed a cause of action, and considered the requirement under Section 100 that the pleaded ground support a challenge to the election, including the material effect of the alleged irregularity on the result.

No judicial precedent was relied upon by the Court as part of its stated reasoning.

The Court found the counting allegations vague because the petition did not specify how the Returning Officer had departed from the required procedure.

It considered the recount request, made shortly before the result was declared, an afterthought, noting that the counting agents had approved the booth- and round-wise counts by signing Form 17C and that no contemporaneous objections to the counting procedure were shown.

The Court further held that the criminal-case allegation lacked particulars identifying any case or FIR pending when the nomination was filed; it accepted that Form 26 required disclosure of pending cases, not cases already closed or disposed of.

Finally, it found no pleading explaining how the alleged irregularities materially affected the election result.

The petition therefore failed to disclose the material facts and cause of action required for trial.

In light of that decision, O.A. No. 917 of 2026 was closed.