In the case of Yendapalli Srinivasulu Reddy Vs. Vemireddy Pattabhirami Reddy & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 7951 of 2022, decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 19.10.2022.
Facts of the Case-
The Petitioner filed an election petition to challenge the election of the Respondent No. 1 on various grounds inter alia including improper acceptance of his nomination paper as the said nomination paper was not accompanied by proper affidavit and there had been certain blank spaces in the affidavit because of which the affidavit was rendered nugatory and therefore the nomination was required to be rejected.
The Petitioner after about a year of filing of the said petition, filed an application seeking to amend the petition so as to incorporate the averments inter alia regarding non-disclosure of pending criminal cases against the Respondent No. 1. The said application was challenged by the Respondent No. 1 essentially on the ground that after expiry of the period of limitation for filing of election petition, the Petitioner cannot be permitted to amend the petition so as to include any other and new ground of challenge. Placing reliance on Sec 33A, 86(5), 100 (1) and 125A of the RP Act, the Respondent No. 1 further argued that the amendment application relates to the allegations of corrupt practice and as there was no allegation for corrupt practice in the original petition, the application cannot be allowed.
The High Court, however, allowed the said application vide order dated 06.02.2019, against which the Respondent No. 1 had filed appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Analysis and Findings of the Court-
The Court observed that the Petitioner has challenged the election of the Respondent No. 1 on various grounds including improper acceptance of nomination paper however, he has never taken “corrupt practice” as a ground against Respondent No. 1. The Court further observed that the pleadings sought to incorporated by way of amendment so as to indicate that the nomination form was not to be accepted for yet another reason, being non-compliance of statutory requirements, cannot be said to be of introduction of any new cause of action or new ground of challenge.
Placing reliance on the principles laid down in Sethi Roop v. Malti Thapar (Mrs.) and Others:(1994) 2 SCC 579, the Apex Court uphold the order of the High Court and held that it cannot be said that the grounds as sought to be pleaded does not have any foundation whatsoever in the petition as filed; or that pleading of such particulars would change the character of the election petition.