<p>The Supreme Court on Thursday said an election petition is a serious matter and it can be summarily dismissed on the omission of a single material fact as it dismissed a plea against DMK leader Kanimozhi's election as an MP from Thoothukudi constituency in 2019 for allegedly concealing PAN card details of her NRI husband.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela M Trivedi pointed the appellant, Kanimozhi had clearly stated in Form 26 that there was no PAN card number of spouse K Aravindhan in view of his foreign citizenship.</p>.<p>"Mere bald and vague allegations without any basis would not be sufficient compliance of the requirement of stating material facts in the election petition. As well settled not only positive statement of facts, even a positive statement of negative fact is also required to be stated, as it would be a material fact constituting a cause of action," the bench said.</p>.<p>The court noted voters A Santhana Kumar and others who filed the election petition failed to disclose material facts, and the omission to state such vital and basic facts has rendered the petition liable to be dismissed.</p>.<p>The bench said it was obligatory on the part of the petitioner to state as to what was the Permanent Account Number of Kanimozhi's spouse, which was suppressed by her and how the other details furnished about her husband in the said Form No 26 were incomplete or false.</p>.<p>Highlighting the legal position, the bench said, "The election petition is a serious matter and it cannot be treated lightly or in a fanciful manner nor is it given to a person who uses it as a handle for vexatious purpose."</p>.<p>The court also pointed out the election petition can be summarily dismissed on the omission of a single material fact leading to an incomplete cause of action.</p>.<p>Relying upon previous judgements, the top court said, a right to elect, though fundamental it is to democracy, is neither a fundamental right nor a common law right. It is purely a statutory right. </p>.<p>"Similarly, right to be elected and the right to dispute an election are also statutory rights. Since they are statutory creations, they are subject to statutory limitations. An Election petition is not an action at common law, nor in equity. It is a special jurisdiction to be exercised in accordance with the statute creating it," it said.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Thursday said an election petition is a serious matter and it can be summarily dismissed on the omission of a single material fact as it dismissed a plea against DMK leader Kanimozhi's election as an MP from Thoothukudi constituency in 2019 for allegedly concealing PAN card details of her NRI husband.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela M Trivedi pointed the appellant, Kanimozhi had clearly stated in Form 26 that there was no PAN card number of spouse K Aravindhan in view of his foreign citizenship.</p>.<p>"Mere bald and vague allegations without any basis would not be sufficient compliance of the requirement of stating material facts in the election petition. As well settled not only positive statement of facts, even a positive statement of negative fact is also required to be stated, as it would be a material fact constituting a cause of action," the bench said.</p>.<p>The court noted voters A Santhana Kumar and others who filed the election petition failed to disclose material facts, and the omission to state such vital and basic facts has rendered the petition liable to be dismissed.</p>.<p>The bench said it was obligatory on the part of the petitioner to state as to what was the Permanent Account Number of Kanimozhi's spouse, which was suppressed by her and how the other details furnished about her husband in the said Form No 26 were incomplete or false.</p>.<p>Highlighting the legal position, the bench said, "The election petition is a serious matter and it cannot be treated lightly or in a fanciful manner nor is it given to a person who uses it as a handle for vexatious purpose."</p>.<p>The court also pointed out the election petition can be summarily dismissed on the omission of a single material fact leading to an incomplete cause of action.</p>.<p>Relying upon previous judgements, the top court said, a right to elect, though fundamental it is to democracy, is neither a fundamental right nor a common law right. It is purely a statutory right. </p>.<p>"Similarly, right to be elected and the right to dispute an election are also statutory rights. Since they are statutory creations, they are subject to statutory limitations. An Election petition is not an action at common law, nor in equity. It is a special jurisdiction to be exercised in accordance with the statute creating it," it said.</p>
