Right to cross-examine in election petitions is substantial, but necessitates demonstrating specific, justifiable grounds for its exercise.

The appellant was declared the winner of the Gram Panchayat Pradhan election by a margin of one vote

The first respondent (unsuccessful candidate) filed an election petition under Section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947

During the trial, two witnesses submitted evidence via affidavit

The appellant filed an application seeking to cross-examine these witnesses, which the Election Tribunal rejected on 08.06.2022, citing a lack of stated reasons and the discretionary nature of Rule 4 of the 1994 Rules

The High Court dismissed the appellant’s writ petition, observing that Rule 4 of the 1994 Rules constitutes a "complete code" that excludes general provisions of the CPC regarding cross-examination

The court interpreted Rule 4(1) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules, 1994, which mandates that election petitions be tried "as nearly as may be" in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908

It relied on Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah v. Muddasani Sarojana, which establishes cross-examination as a "matter of substance" and an integral facet of natural justice

It further applied the principle from K.L. Tripathi v. State Bank of India, stating that while fair play is not a rigid formula, the right to cross-examine is indispensable when a lis involves disputed questions of fact

The Court clarified that the High Court erred in labeling Rule 4 as a "complete code" that ousts the right to cross-examination; rather, the phrase "as nearly as may be" indicates a legislative intent to preserve essential trial features

The Court reasoned that while Rule 4(ii) and (iv) grant the Tribunal discretion to dispense with full recording of evidence, this discretion must be exercised based on whether the testimony touches upon the "real controversy" of the case

If a statement is merely a narration of undisputed facts, cross-examination may be denied to prevent delay; however, the burden lies on the applicant to justify the need for such cross-examination

In the present case, the appellant’s application was found to be boilerplate and devoid of any specific justification or reasons why the veracity of the witnesses needed to be tested

The Court upheld the Election Tribunal's order because the appellant failed to provide sufficient and justifiable reasons for the request

However, it specifically set aside the High Court’s legal observation that the CPC/Evidence Act provisions on cross-examination have no applicability, clarifying that a Tribunal may permit it upon a reasoned application