In Brief
A Legislative Assembly candidate challenged his election loss by a margin of 111 votes by filing an election petition alleging improper receipt of postal ballots, EVM-record discrepancies, and dual franchise exercise. The High Court dismissed the petition at the threshold, finding it lacked material facts and disclosed no cause of action. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Civil Procedure Code, when determining whether an election petition states a cause of action, courts must consider only the petitioner's pleadings—not the respondent's replies—and take those allegations as correct. The petition adequately disclosed grounds under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and was remitted for trial on merits.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.