Tiruppattur election challenge over one-vote victory rejected for lack of material facts

The first respondent in the election petition challenged the applicant’s election from No. 185, Tiruppattur Assembly Constituency, which was decided by a one-vote margin.

The election petition alleged, among other matters, a shortfall in the accounting of postal ballots; the wrongful rejection or misdirection of postal ballots; failure to re-verify rejected postal ballots under Clause 15.25 of the Returning Officers’ Handbook; and irregular configuration of EVMs.

The returned candidate applied under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the petition for failure to plead material facts and disclose a cause of action.

The Court noted that Form 20 recorded 2,275 postal ballots, including 306 rejected ballots, and a one-vote margin; it treated the petition’s reference elsewhere to 316 rejected ballots as a typographical error.

Whether the Returning Officer failed to follow Clause 15.25 of the Handbook for Returning Officers, 2023, and, if so, whether that non-compliance could vitiate the election.

Whether the election petition pleaded the material facts necessary to show that the alleged irregularities materially affected the result, and therefore disclosed a cause of action under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Whether the allegations concerning a misdirected postal ballot and EVM configuration were sufficiently particularised to sustain the election petition.

Section 83(1)(a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 requires an election petition to state concisely the material facts relied upon; omission of facts essential to a complete cause of action may warrant rejection.

Under Section 100(1)(d)(iii) and (iv), an election may be declared void for improper reception, refusal or rejection of votes, or non-compliance with the Constitution, the Act, or rules or orders made under it, only where the result has been materially affected.

The Court relied on Arikala Narasa Reddy v. Venkata Ram Reddy Reddygari, (2014) 5 SCC 312, for the obligation of Returning Officers to follow Handbook instructions, and on Ramesh Rout v. Rabindra Nath Rout, (2012) 1 SCC 762, and S.M. Nasar v. K. Pandiarajan, (2023) 4 CTC 50, for the proposition that breach of a Handbook direction, by itself, does not establish a ground to invalidate an election; the statutory requirements, including material effect on the result, must be met.

Rule 54A(2) of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 provides that a postal-ballot cover received after the prescribed time shall not be opened and its vote shall not be counted.

The Court found that the alleged misdirected postal ballot was supported principally by an affidavit from an election agent, with the petitioner’s email and representation made after the result was declared; it considered there to be no independent material establishing that the ballot had been received and retained by the other constituency’s Returning Officer or that the alleged event affected the result.

It also observed that the election rules did not contemplate transferring or counting the ballot after the prescribed stage.

Although the margin was one vote and the number of rejected postal ballots was greater, the Court held that failure to follow Clause 15.25, without pleaded material facts showing its effect on the result, did not complete a cause of action.

The EVM allegations likewise identified no particular machine, defect, tampering, or causal connection to the result.

The Court allowed the original application and rejected the election petition for want of the requisite material facts and failure to disclose a complete cause of action.