The Supreme Court has issued notice on a special leave petition challenging the decision of the Bombay High Court, which overruled the allegations made in an election petition filed against Union Minister for Road, Transport and Highways, Nitin Jairam Gadkari.
The Division Bench of Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice P.S. Narasimha issued notice on September 16 on the limited point of whether the pleadings were liable to be purged by the Bombay High Court.
On February 26, 2021, the single-Judge Nagpur Bench of Justice A.S. Chandurkar had refused to quash the election petition, which challenged Gadkari’s election to the Lok Sabha from the Nagpur constituency in 2019.
The High Court had partly allowed an application under Order VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, while striking down the pleadings raised in the petition with respect to the income earned by the family members of the Minister and land owned by them.
There were also allegations regarding the expenditure made during the 2019 General Elections. Petitioner Mohammed Nafis Khan, being unsatisfied by the High Court verdict, then approached the Supreme Court.
The petition was filed on the basis of allegations made by one Nafis Khan, an elector from the Nagpur constituency, who accused Gadkari of submitting false information in his nomination form and election affidavit.
Khan had challenged the Gadkari’s election the 17th Lok Sabha under Sections 100(1)(b) and Sub-clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) of Section 100(1)(d) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and urged the High Court to set it aside as void.
Justice Chandurkar, while observing that two points in Khan’s prayer with regard to the land solely owned by Gadkari and the declaration of agriculture as his source of income had disclosed material facts and necessary cause of action, refused to quash the election petition.
However, the Single-Judge Bench of the High Court proceeded to strike down other prayers in the petition, partly allowing an application moved by Gadkari under Order VI Rule 16 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
This provision permits the court, at any stage of the proceedings, to strike out any matter in the pleading which may be unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous, vexatious or prejudicial or otherwise appears to be an abuse of the process of the court”.
The High Court observed that the election petition consequently would proceed for trial on the basis of the averments that remain after the paragraphs as directed to be struck off are so struck off.
The Division Bench of Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice P.S. Narasimha issued notice on September 16 on the limited point of whether the pleadings were liable to be purged by the Bombay High Court.
Before the Apex Court, the petitioner contended that the High Court erred by striking out relevant pleadings, when he had not offended the rules of pleadings and had raised arguable issues.
He added that the power to strike out pleadings was extraordinary and must be exercised by the court sparingly and “with extreme care, caution and circumspection”.
The petitioner claimed that the pleadings that were purged by the High Court had disclosed a reasonable cause of action.
He pointed out that as long as the claim disclosed some cause of action or raised some questions fit to be decided by a Judge, the mere fact that the case was weak and not likely to succeed was no ground for striking it out.
The petitioner also claimed that the Single Judge had failed to read the pleadings as a whole to ascertain the true import of the allegations, and as such, had deviated from settled principles.
He has also prayed for interim relief in the form of an ad-interim ex-parte stay on the final judgement and order of the Bombay High Court.