Election Petition Against Manipur MLA: Supreme Court Upholds High Court Decision

The legal dispute between Kimneo Haokip Hangshing, an elected Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) from Manipur, and her election opponent, Kenn Raikhan, centered on allegations of corrupt practices and non-disclosure of assets. The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated September 13, 2024, dismissed the appeal by Hangshing, upholding the High Court of Manipur’s ruling that the election petition challenging her victory disclosed a valid cause of action and should not be summarily rejected.

The dispute arose from allegations that Hangshing had failed to disclose her financial details accurately in her election affidavit and had indulged in corrupt practices during the election. The appellant argued that the petition should be dismissed at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), as it did not provide sufficient details of the alleged corrupt practices. However, both the High Court and the Supreme Court rejected this argument, ruling that the petition contained substantial compliance with legal requirements.

Background of the Case

Kimneo Haokip Hangshing was elected as an MLA from the 46-Saikul Assembly Constituency in Manipur during the 12th General Elections to the Manipur Legislative Assembly in 2022. Her election opponent, Kenn Raikhan, filed an election petition before the High Court of Manipur, challenging her election on the grounds that:

She had concealed her assets and financial investments amounting to Rs. 2 crore in her election affidavit (Form 26).
She had misrepresented her income for the financial year 2021-22 by falsely declaring zero income, despite having served as a Committee Officer in the Manipur Legislative Assembly Secretariat until December 31, 2021.

Based on these allegations, Raikhan contended that Hangshing’s nomination should have been rejected, making her election invalid.

Arguments Presented

Appellant’s (Kimneo Haokip Hangshing) Arguments

Hangshing, through her legal counsel, contended:

The election petition did not provide specific details of corrupt practices or any evidence of wrongdoing.
The allegations of non-disclosure of assets and misrepresentation of income were vague and did not amount to a valid election challenge under Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA).
As per Order VII Rule 11 CPC, a petition that fails to disclose a cause of action must be dismissed at the outset.

Respondent’s (Kenn Raikhan) Arguments

Raikhan countered these claims by asserting:

The election petition contained a clear statement of material facts regarding Hangshing’s misrepresentation of financial details.
The concealment of assets and misreporting of income were substantive issues requiring trial and could not be dismissed summarily.
There was “substantial compliance” with the requirements of Section 83(1) of the RPA, which necessitated a full trial to examine the allegations.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court examined whether the election petition met the legal threshold for disclosing a cause of action. The key findings were:

Section 83(1) of the RPA mandates that an election petition should contain a concise statement of material facts and set forth full particulars of any corrupt practices alleged.
The petition alleged specific violations, such as the concealment of Rs. 2 crore in investments and false income declarations, which were sufficient to merit a trial.
Order VII Rule 11 CPC applies only when the petition does not disclose any cause of action at all, which was not the case here.
Substantial compliance with statutory requirements is sufficient for an election petition to proceed, as held in previous Supreme Court rulings such as G.M. Siddeshwar v. Prasanna Kumar (2013) 4 SCC 776 and Thangjam Arunkumar v. Yumkham Erabot Singh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1058.

Consequently, the Court ruled that the High Court was correct in dismissing Hangshing’s Order VII Rule 11 application and allowing the election petition to proceed.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court concluded:

“The requirement to file an affidavit under the proviso to Section 83(1)(c) is not mandatory. It is sufficient if there is substantial compliance. As the defect is curable, an opportunity may be granted to file the necessary affidavit.”

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/supreme-court-reinstates-arunachal-pradesh-mla-after-election-dispute/

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the election petition was allowed to proceed to trial.

Implications of the Judgment

This judgment reinforces the principle that election petitions should not be dismissed on technical grounds if they disclose a substantial cause of action. The ruling establishes that:

Election petitions must comply with procedural requirements, but minor defects do not warrant immediate dismissal.
Allegations of corrupt practices and misrepresentation must be examined in a full trial rather than being summarily dismissed.
Courts must ensure a fair and thorough hearing in election disputes, particularly when they involve fundamental electoral integrity issues.

The decision underscores the judiciary’s role in upholding electoral fairness and ensuring that candidates adhere to legal disclosure requirements.

Petitioner Name: Kimneo Haokip Hangshing.
Respondent Name: Kenn Raikhan & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah.
Place Of Incident: Manipur, India.
Judgment Date: 13-09-2024.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: kimneo-haokip-hangsh-vs-kenn-raikhan-&-ors.-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-13-09-2024.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Public Interest Litigation
See all petitions in Fundamental Rights
See all petitions in Legislative Powers
See all petitions in Judgment by Sudhanshu Dhulia
See all petitions in Judgment by Ahsanuddin Amanullah
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments September 2024
See all petitions in 2024 judgments

See all posts in Election and Political Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Election and Political Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Election and Political Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Election and Political Cases Category