The Court held that the Election Petition lacked in Material Facts and hence, was not maintainable and was not liable to be put on trial.
Sh. Satya Pal Jain, Senior Advocate & Ex-MP from Chandigarh, assisted by Sh. K. R. Singh & Mr. Dheeraj Jain, Advocates, represented the respondent Sh. Narendra Modi whereas Sh. Umesh Narain Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Sh. Jitender Kumar, had represented the petitioner.
Initially, Sh. Modi’s election was challenged by the petitioners on 7 grounds, i.e. Firstly, Improper acceptance of his nomination papers; Secondly, spending more amount on the Election then the prescribed limit; Thirdly, bribery; Fourthly, undue Influence; Fifthly, appealing to voters in the name of Hindu Religion; Sixthly, creating hatred among people of different religions and, lastly; on the violation of various provisions of the Constitution and the Election Laws.
However, when the matter was put up for arguments on the issue of maintainability, Sh. Satya Pal Jain representing Sh. Modi argued that the averments made by the Election Petitioner in his petition lacked Material Facts, were vague and uncertain and they do not make out any case against Sh. Modi. He cited the cases of Late Smt. Indira Gandhi, Late Sh. Rajiv Gandhi and that of Smt. Sonia Gandhi to seek the dismissal of the Election Petition because of lack of material facts.
In reply to Sh. Jain, Sh. Umesh Narain Sharma, Sr. Advocate representing the petitioner told the Court that he will not be now pressing the grounds no. 3 to 7 and would limit his challenge only to ground nos. 1 & 2. He said that the petition does contain material facts and it deserves to be put to trail to enable him to prove the charges.
The arguments in this case were heard spreading over two months and the judgment was declared by the Judge in the open court on 5th, 6th and 7th of December, 2016.
The Court ruled that the Election Petition did not contain the requisite material facts and, hence, there was no cause of action to the petitioner to file and maintain the Election Petition. The Judge held that, in view of this basic lacuna, the Election Petition was not liable to be put on trial and, hence, the Election Petition in dismissed at the threshold and in limine.