In Dr. Ejya Yadav vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh & Ors. (2026), Justice Ashok Kumar Pandey of Patna High Court delivered a 61-page long judgement dated August 12, 2026, wherein, he concluded:" 44.....this is not a fit case for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC and also from perusal of the election petition it is clear that it makes out a cause of action. 45. Accordingly, I.A. No. 04 of 2026 stands dismissed."
In paragraph 77 of the Supreme Court's decision in Harkirat Singh vs. Amrinder Singh, reported in MANU/SC/2461/2005, wherein, the Court has held the High Court cannot step into prohibited area of appreciating the evidence and by entering into merits of the case which would be permissible only at the stage of trial of the election petition and not at the stage of consideration whether the election petition was maintainable. The attention of the Court was drawn towards this decision by the counsel for the petitioner.
Rajesh Singh Singh's counsel had stated that the election petition does not make out any cause of action and as such the same is liable to be dismissed as threshold by referring to Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, which states that "The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:-(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;...."
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the election petition of the petitioner attracts any of the provisions of Section 100 of the Representation of People Act, it cannot be said that it does not discloses a cause of action. He submitted that from perusal of the affidavit Form-26 it will transpire that material information have been concealed. The returned candidate concealed his antecedents and his income as well. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the nomination of a candidate was improperly rejected or accepted, this sole can be a ground for declaring the election to be void in view of Section 100 of the Representation of People Act. It was submitted that the issues which are raised by the petitioner are matter of trial and without trial, this issue cannot be determined.
This interlocutory application (I.A.) by Rajesh Kumar Singh, the BJP MLA from Mohiuddinnagar, Samastipur was filed on behalf of respondent no. 1 under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC read with Section 86 Sub-clause 1 of the Representation of People Act for rejection of plaint since the plaint does not disclose a cause of action and the election is barred by the proviso to Section 83 (I) (C) read with Rule 94A of the Conduct of Election Rules 1961 as a necessary affidavit in Form 26 of the Conduct of Election Rules 1961 was required to be furnished by the election petitioner at the time of filing the election petition.
The I.A. was against the election petition filed by RJD candidate, Dr. Ejya Yadav, the election petitioner for declaring the election of Rajesh Kumar Singh, the BJP candidate from 137 Mohiuddinnagar Assembly Constituency in the election held on November 6, 2025 to be void, allegedly for improper acceptance of the nomination paper filed by Rajesh Kumar Singh and for wrong rejection of the nomination paper of another candidate, namely Ramjit Thakur.
The I.A. submitted that the election petition was fit to be rejected in view of the provisions contained in Order 7 Rule 11 (A) and (D) of the Civil Procedure Code 1908 read with Section 86 Sub-clause 1 of the Representation of People Act because the allegation leveled in the election petition with respect to non-disclosure of criminal cases against Rajesh Kumar Singh is absolutely vague and lacks necessary averment to substantiate that Sing has concealed any information in this regard which was required to be disclosed as per Section 33A of the Representation of People Act. It was submitted that the election petition lacks averment to the effect that respondent number 1 was accused of an offense punishable with imprisonment for two years or more in a pending case in which a charge has been framed by a court of competent jurisdiction or he has been convicted of an offense and sentenced to imprisonment for one year or more. In the absence of any averment to the said effect, it cannot be said that the answering respondent has not furnished the requisite details in the nomination form with respect to his criminal antecedents. It was not stated anywhere in the election petition that Singh had knowledge about any criminal case pending against him on the date of filing of nomination. In the absence of any averment in the election petition that Singh had any knowledge about the criminal case or charges having been framed in a criminal case, the said ground does not give any cause of action to the election petitioner and that there is no any averment in the election petition that the non-disclosure of the information relating to a criminal case has materially affected the election of the returned candidate, in the absence of which the petition on the grounds mentioned under Section 100(1)(d)(i) is not maintainable. It was submitted that even if the allegation of concealment of criminal antecedent is found to be true and if found to have materially affected the election of the returned candidate, it would amount to undue influence and therefore, the filing of Form 26 is essential and mandatory. In the absence of which, the present election petition is not maintainable. It was also submitted that the election petition also deserves to fail for non-joinder of a candidate, namely Ramjit Thakur, as a party to the election petition. Since the election petitioner has sought to sustain the election petition also on the ground that the nomination paper of the candidate was improperly rejected. In the absence of Ramjit Thakur being a party to this list, this ground cannot be entertained by the High Court. Justice Pandey was not persuaded by these submissions made in the I.A.
Notably, similar submissions have been made by Nitish Mishra, the Bihar's minister of urban development and information technology in his I.A. against the maintainability of the election petition filed Dr. Gopal Krishna, the counsel of Ram Narayan Yadav, the candidate of Communist Party of India (CPI) from Jhanjharpur, Madhubani. The election petition has submitted that Mishra has failed to disclose the FIR filed against him consequent to the order of the High Court by Mala Jha. Hindustan, The Bihar Report, Kashish News, Dainik Bhaskar, Dainik Jagran, The Times of India and News4Nation news paper has reported about it on August 21, 2026.
No comments:
Post a Comment