The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to reject at the threshold an election petition challenging the election of Haryana minister and BJP MLA Vipul Goel from the 89-Faridabad Assembly constituency, holding that the issues raised require adjudication through evidence at trial.
Dismissing an application moved by Goel, Justice Vikas Suri held that the election petition filed by Lakhan Kumar Singla could not be rejected at the preliminary stage, particularly where multiple grounds of challenge were raised. The bench observed that partial failure of one ground would not justify throwing out the petition as a whole.
“Having heard the senior counsels for the parties at length and having perused the record with their able assistance, I am of the considered opinion that the present application cannot succeed,” the court held.
The bench further ruled that the petition as a whole must go to trial and could not be rejected at the threshold if the cause of action survived for a part of the claim in the election petition.
Background
Singla has challenged Goel’s election from the Faridabad constituency, primarily alleging corrupt practices under Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, claiming voters were influenced in the name of religion.
The petition also raised allegations regarding discrepancies in the battery levels of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs), which, according to the petitioner, conferred an undue advantage to the returned candidate. It further questioned the Standard Operating Procedures issued by the Election Commission of India, alleging non-compliance with directions of the Supreme Court.
Appearing for Singla, senior advocate Mohan Jain argued that rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was permissible only where no cause of action was disclosed. He submitted that the election petition contained specific pleadings of corrupt practices, including material particulars such as date and venue, and therefore required a full trial. It was further argued that allegations under the Representation of the People Act could only be tested through oral and documentary evidence.
On the other hand, counsel for Goel contended that the returned candidate had filed nomination papers on September 9, 2024, and was not even a candidate on September 7, 2024, the date of the alleged incident. It was argued that, therefore, no allegation of influencing voters in the name of religion could survive and the petition was not maintainable.
Court’s findings
Rejecting the plea for dismissal, Justice Suri held that the objection regarding the date of candidature did not cover the entire challenge.
“An endeavor has been made to show that the respondent-applicant had filed his nomination papers on September 9, 2024, and as such, he was not even a candidate on the date of the alleged corrupt practice, i.e., September 7, 2024. However, a perusal of the election petition would show that the said ground is not the only ground for challenging the election,” the bench observed.
Reiterating the governing principle, the court held that partial insufficiency of one ground could not lead to rejection of the entire petition at the outset. The Bench also took note of allegations relating to EVM battery levels, recording that complaints were raised at the time of counting on October 8, 2024, followed by a representation to the Deputy Commissioner, Faridabad, on October 9, 2024, and a subsequent request for recounting through VVPAT slips on October 12, 2024, addressed to the election authorities.
Justice Suri asserted the aspect would be a matter of trial and could only be proven by leading cogent evidence. “The election petition cannot be rejected at the threshold and particularly, on the premise that the cause of action for one of the grounds raised in the election petition is not made out.”
