The Madras High Court recently dismissed an election petition filed by VB Prabhu, an AIADMK candidate, challenging the election of TVK's Sengottaiyan from the Gobichettipalayam constituency. The petition was premised solely on the allegation that the notary who attested the affidavit in Form 26 filed with the nomination papers did not possess a valid and subsisting certificate of practice at the time of attestation.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan, delivering the judgment, observed that merely alleging that Form 26 was attested by a notary whose certificate had expired could not constitute a complete cause of action under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, unless it was shown that the violation materially affected the result of the election. The court emphasized that the absence of such vital facts—namely, the statutory violation and its material impact on the election outcome—went to the root of the cause of action pleaded.
The court held that the election petition, which failed to disclose a complete cause of action, was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, read with Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act. It noted that the petition did not plead the necessary facts establishing the statutory violation or demonstrate how the alleged defect in the attestation of the affidavit affected the election result.
Justice Ilanthiraiyan further observed that the same objection had already been raised before the Returning Officer during the election process and was rejected after a detailed enquiry. The Returning Officer’s order had attained finality as it was not challenged in accordance with the law. The court noted that Prabhu, after allowing the Returning Officer’s decision to become final, raised the same objections before the court without demonstrating any legally sustainable ground under the RP Act.
The bench observed that except for alleging that the Returning Officer had failed to accept objections regarding the validity of the attestation by the advocate and notary public, Prabhu had not disclosed any other ground on which the election was sought to be declared void. There was no specific averment on how the alleged defect in the attestation of the affidavit materially affected the result of the election.
Thus, even assuming the allegation regarding the validity of the notary’s attestation to be correct, the election petition did not disclose the essential facts necessary to constitute a cause of action under Section 100 of the RP Act. The court concluded that, taking the averments in the petition at their face value, it did not disclose a complete cause of action or any legally sustainable ground for setting aside the election of the returned candidate.
Accordingly, the court rejected the election petition, finding no cause of action to proceed with the challenge. The judgment underscores that procedural irregularities, such as an expired notary’s license, cannot invalidate an election unless it is shown that the irregularity had a material effect on the electoral outcome.