Natural ink marks on ballots are not identification marks, and corrupt practice requires specific pleading and strict proof.

The petitioner, Neetu Parmar, was declared elected as President of the Municipal Council, Multai, in an indirect election where 15 elected Councillors voted. She secured 9 votes against 6 votes for Respondent No. 1

Respondent No. 1 challenged the election before the Election Tribunal on two grounds: (i) that four ballots contained identification marks and (ii) that the petitioner engaged in "corrupt practice" by securing votes from Councillors of the Indian National Congress (INC) through illegal resources/promises

The Tribunal set aside the election, concluding that six ballots were invalid due to marks and that the subsequent appointment of two INC Councillors to Advisory Committees proved corrupt practice

The petitioner filed a Civil Revision; however, the High Court initially dismissed it for a two-day delay in depositing security required under Rule 19(2) of the M.P. Municipalities (Election Petition) Rules, 1962. The Supreme Court subsequently remanded the matter for a hearing on the merits

1. Whether a Civil Revision is maintainable if the security deposit under Rule 19(2) of the 1962 Rules is made after the date of presentation

2. Whether electors who were not parties to the original election petition can be considered "persons aggrieved" entitled to file a revision under Section 26(2) of the Act

3. Whether ink blots or pen trails on ballot papers constitute "identification marks" rendering the votes void

4. Whether the procurement of votes from an opposing political party and the subsequent appointment of such voters to statutory committees constitutes "corrupt practice" in the absence of specific pleadings

The court applied Article 225 of the Constitution and Clause 27 of the Letters Patent of the Nagpur High Court, affirming the High Court's exclusive power to regulate its own procedure

Rule 19(2) of the 1962 Rules, being a delegated legislation in conflict with the parent M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 and the M.P. High Court Rules, 2008, must give way

Regarding corrupt practices, the court relied on Manohar Joshi v. Damodar Tatyaba, establishing that such charges are quasi-criminal and require strict proof

It further applied the "material facts" doctrine from Anil Vasudev Salgaonkar v. Naresh Kushali Shigaonkar, which mandates that all basic facts constituting a corrupt practice must be specifically pleaded

The court first resolved the maintainability issue, ruling that the State Government lacks the authority to regulate High Court procedure; therefore, the mandatory dismissal clause in Rule 19(2) for late security deposits is inapplicable as it conflicts with Article 225 and the High Court Rules

On the merits, the court examined the disputed ballots (Exhibits D-25 to D-32) and found that the "marks" were merely natural ink blots or pen trails, which were also present on the respondent's ballots

Since no specific pattern existed to identify the voters, the Tribunal's finding was deemed perverse

The Tribunal’s inference of bribery based on the appointment of INC Councillors to Advisory Committees was legally flawed because these "material facts" were never pleaded in the election petition

Furthermore, the court held that under Sections 70 and 71 of the Act, the President has the statutory right to appoint any Councillor to the President-in-Council or Advisory Committees, and such appointments do not permit an automatic inference of corrupt practice

The court held that (i) the revision was maintainable as Rule 19(2) cannot override High Court procedural rules; (ii) the alleged identification marks were natural ink flow issues and not grounds for invalidation; and (iii) corrupt practice cannot be inferred from statutory appointments without specific pleadings and strict proof. Civil Revisions Nos. 497 and 499 of 2023 filed by electors were dismissed as not maintainable, as they were not "aggrieved persons" within the meaning of Section 26