IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 17TH MAY 2010 / 27TH VAISAKHA 1932 El.Pet..No. 5 of 2009() ----------------------- PETITIONER: DR.P.POOKUNHI KOYA, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.CHERIYA KOYA HAJI, PALLICHAPURA HOUSE, AMINI, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.DAMODARAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.C.S.ABDUL SAMMAD SRI.ALAN PAPALI SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN SRI.SOJAN MICHEAL SRI.GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA SRI.NISHIL.P.S. RESPONDENT(S): 1. MUHAMMED HAMDULLAH SAYED, MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT, S/O.LATE P.MOHAMMED SAYEED, ALIYATHAMMADA BEETHATHABIYYAPURA, ANDROTH, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, 2. LUKMANUL HAKEEM, S/O.SAYEED MOHAMED, MELEKUNNADOM, KAVARATHI, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, 3. DR.K.P.MUTHU KOYA, S/O.ABOOBACKER KUNJI, KATTAMPALLY, KAVARATHI, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP. ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR FOR R1 SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI FOR R3 SMT.C.G.PREETHA FOR R3 SRI.P.M.MOHAMMED SHIRAZ FOR R1 THIS ELECTION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/01/2010, THE COURT ON 17/05/2010 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX E.P.NO.5 OF 2009 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ANNEXURE I : TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION REGARDING THE AMENDMENT BROUGHT TO THE CONSTITUTION (SCHEDULE TRIBES) (UNION TERRITORIES) ORDER (AMENDMENT) ACT,2008 PUBLISHED IN THE LAKSHADWEEP GAZETTE DATED 31.01.2009. ANNEXURE II : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.7/1/1998-80/ADM (VOL.II) DATED 3.02.2009 ISSUED BY THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATHI. ANNEXURE III : TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF BIRTH OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA DATED 18.01.1996. ANNEXURE IV : TRUE COPY OF THE CASTE CERTIFICATE ISSUED IN RESPECT OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT NO.15/3/2008 SDO (AND)416 DATED 03.02.2009. ANNEXURE V : TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT APPEARED IN THE MAIL TODAY DATED 26.12.2008. ANNEXURE VI : TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE HON'BLE MINISTER DISPLAYING THE CERTIFICATE IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE PROJECTION OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF LATE P.M.SAYEED. ANNEXURE VII : TUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER NO.2/04/2007 SERVICES ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR (SERVICES) ADMINISTRATION OF LAKSHADWEEP DATED 1.02.2009. ANNEXURE VIII : TRUE COPY OF THE SCHEDULE SHOWING THE NAMES AND ADDRESS OF THE OFFICIALS WHO ATTENDED THE MEETING OF THE LAKSHADWEEP PARISHATH CONGRESS AND THE PERSONS WHO WITNESSED THE SAME. ANNEXURE IX : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER GIVEN BY THE PRESIDENT N.C.P. LAKSHADWEEP STATE UNIT TO THE HON'BLE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI DATED 09.02.2009. ANNEXURE X : TRUE COPY OF THE SCHEDULE SHOWING THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WHO HAVE CONSPIRED FOR CANVASSING VOTES FOR THE FIRST RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE XI : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ADDRESSED BY THE GENERAL SECRETARY OF THE NCP TO THE ELECTORAL OFFICER DATED 10.02.2009. ANNEXURE XII : TRUE COPY OF THE LAKSHADWEEP TIMES DATED 13.02.2009 REPORTING THE NEWS REGARDING THE FUNCTION ORGANISED BY THE LAKSHADWEEP EMPLOYEES PARISHATH. ANNEXURE XIII : PHOTOGRAPH OF THE EFFIGY OF THE PETITIONER EXHIBITED AT AGATTI. ANNEXURE XIV : TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DEED 05.04.2009 SUBMITTED BY SRI.ABOOBACKER KONDINODA BEFORE THE POLICE OFFICIALS. ANNEXURE XIV(A) : TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE XIV. ANNEXURE XV : SCHEDULE SHOWING THE PLACES WHERE THE EFFIGY OF THE PETITIONER WAS EXHIBITED IN THE ISLANDS AND THE NAME AND ADDRESSES OF THE PERSONS DISPLAYED THE SAME AND WHO HAVE WITNESSED THE SAME. ANNEXURE XVI : COPY of the PHOTOGRAPH OF SRI.LATE P.M.SAYEED THE FATHER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT WITH THE BACKGROUND OF THE MOSQUE IN MECCA. ANNEXURE XVII : TRUE COPY OF THE SCHEDULE SHOWING THE PLACE, DATE AND TIME OF EXHIBITING AND DISTRIBUTION OF COPIES OF ANNEXURE XVI. ANNEXURE XVIII : TRUE COPY OF THE ANONYMOUS NOTICE PUBLISHED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE XVIII(A): TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE XVIII ANNEXURE XIX : TRUE COPY OF THE SCHEDULE SHOWING THE PLACE, DATE AND TIME OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF ANNEXURE XVIII AND NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE PERSONS DISTRIBUTED AND WITNESSED. ANNEXURE XX : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT GIVEN BY K.P.ALI ON 16.04.2009 TO THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER. ANNEXURE XXI : COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PAYMENT OF MONEY BY A CONSTABLE MUHAMMED UBAIDULLA OUTSIDE THE HOUSE OWNED BY MUTHUKOYA HAJI TO A VOTER. ANNEXURE XXI(a) : TRUE COPY OF THE CD SHOWING THE TRANSACTIONS ON PAYMENT OF MONEY TO THE VOTERS. ANNEXURE XXII : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER GIVEN TO THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER BY T.P.ABDUL RAZACK UNIT SECRETARY OF THE NCP KAVARATHI DATED 21.03.2009. ANNEXURE XXIII : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER GIVEN BY T.P.ABDUL RAZACK TO THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER KAVARATHI DATED 23.03.2009. ANNEXURE XXIV : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER GIVEN BY T.P.ABDUL RAZACK TO THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER, KAVARATHI DATED 25.03.2009. ANNEXURE XXV : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.16/41/2009-ELC DATED 10.4.2009 OF THE ELECTORAL REGISTRATION OFFICER TO THE SHO KAVARATHI. ANNEXURE XXVI : TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF NOMINATIONS DATED 27.03.2009 PUBLISHED BY THE RETURNING OFFICER. ANNEXURE XXVII : TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF CONTESTING CANDIDATES DATED 02.04.2009 PUBLISHED BY THE RETURNING OFFICER. V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Election Petition No. 5 of 2009 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 17th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT In this petition filed under Secs. 80, 100, 101, 123 and 127 A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as “the R.P. Act” for short) , the petitioner (Dr. Pookkunhi Koya) challenges the election of the Ist respondent herein (Muhammed Hamdullah Sayeed) from the U 06 Lakshadweep Parliamentary Constituency (reserved for Scheduled Tribe ) in the Parliamentary election held on 16-4- 2009 and the result of which was declared on 16-5-2009. The petitioner was a candidate and nominee of the political party called National Congress Party. The first respondent returned candidate contested the election as a candidate of the Indian National Congress. The other two contestants were respondents 2 and 3 (Lukmanual Hakeem and Dr. K.P. Muthu Koya). The 2nd respondent was the candidate and nominee of the Communist Party of India (Marxist Party) [“the C.P.I.(M)” for short] and the 3rd respondent was the nominee of the Election Petition No. 5 of 2009 -:2:- Bharathiya Janatha Party [“the B.J.P.“ for short]. 2. The dates which are relevant for the purpose of this election petition are the following:- 1 Date of Election Notification 23-03-2009 2 Last date for filing nomination 30-03-2009 3 Date of scrutiny 31-03-2009 4 Last Date for withdrawal of Nomination 02/04/2009 5 Date of publication of final list of candidates 02/04/2009 6 Date of election 16-04-2009 7 Number of candidates contested 4 8 Date of declaration of election results 16-05-2009 9 Last date for filing E.P. U/s. 81(1) of the R.P.Act 30-06-2009 10 E.P. filed on 30-06-2009 11 Summons issued to the respondents on 17-07-2009 12 R1 entered appearance on 07/09/2009 3. The number of votes secured by the petitioner and respondents 1 to 3 are as follows:- Sl.No. Candidate's Name Candidate's Rank in the E.P. Votes secured 1 Dr. P. Pookunhikoya Petitioner 18294 2 Muhammed Hamdullah Sayed Ist respondent 20492 3 Lukmanual Hakeem 2nd respondent 467 4 Dr.K.P. Muthu Koya 3rd respondent 245 4. According to the petitioner the election of the first respondent is vitiated by the following grounds:- 1) On the date of election the first respondent was not qualified to be chosen to fill the seat thereby attracting Section 100 (1) (a) of the R.P. Act Election Petition No. 5 of 2009 -:3:- 2) The first respondent has won the election on account of the following “corrupt practices “ committed by him, his election agent and other persons with the consent of the first respondent and falling under Sec. 100 (1) (b) of the R.P.Act:- a) By offering gratification to the electors amounting to “bribery” under Section 123 (1) A b) By directly or indirectly interfering with the free exercise of their electoral right by the voters amounting to “undue influence” under Section 123 (2) . c) By appealing to the voters on the ground of religion and using religious symbols falling under Section 123 (3) d) By publishing false statements in relation to the personal character and conduct of the petitioner concerning his candidature and calculated to prejudice the prospects of the petitioner in the election falling under Sec. 123 (4). e) By procuring the services of Government servants for the furtherance of the election prospects of the first respondent falling under Sec. 123 (7) . 3) Non-compliance of the provisions of the Constitution of Election Petition No. 5 of 2009 -:4:- India, R.P. Act and rules and orders issued under the R.P. Act constituting a ground under Sec. 100 (1) (b) (iv). 5. Adv. M/s. P. Chandrasekhar and P.M. Mohammed Shiraz the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent argued that the election petition was liable to be dismissed for want of specific pleading in terms of the legal provisions relied on by the petitioner and that election petition does not make out a complete cause of action so as to maintain the election petition. Sr. Advocate Sri. M.K. Damodaran appearing for the petitioner, on the other hand, submitted that the election petition has pleaded the “material facts “ as well as the “full particulars” with regard to each and every allegation and that the arguments advanced on behalf of the first respondent are unsustainable. 6. The point for consideration is as to whether the Election Petition is liable to be rejected/dismissed as not maintainable at the threshold for want of necessary pleadings and a complete cause of action: 7. The point:- After hearing both sides and after carefully perusing the averments in the Election Petition and after considering the case law on the point I am inclined to accept the contentions urged on behalf of the first respondent. Election Petition No. 5 of 2009 -:5:- 8. The legal principles given below are now well settled and they do not admit of any doubt or controversy :- A. An election contest is not an action at law or a suit in equity but is a purely statutory proceeding unknown to the common law and the court possesses no common law power. (Jagan Nath v. Jaswanth Singh and Others - AIR 1954 SC 2010 ; Ch. Subbarao v. Member, Election Tribunal - AIR 1964 SC 1027). ) . B. Success of a candidate who has won at an election should not be lightly interfered with and any petition seeking such interference must strictly conform to the requirements of the law. [Vide Jagan Nath's case (supra)]. C. The purity of the election process has to be safeguarded . The setting aside of an election involves serious consequences not only for the returned candidate and the constituency but also for the public at large in as much as a re-election involves enormous load on the public funds and the administration. (Shivajirao B Patil Kawekar v. Vilasarao D Deshmukh - 2000 (1) SCC 398). D) The trial of an election petition where “corrupt practice” is alleged is of a quasi criminal nature . A heavy burden rests on the person alleging the corrupt practice to prove strictly all the ingredients of the charge. This is because the charge that a person has committed a corrupt practice has the serious consequence of disqualifying Election Petition No. 5 of 2009 -:6:- him from being chosen as, or from being a member of any House of the Parliament or of the Legislative Assembly or Council of a State for a period up to 6 years. (See Manohar Joshy v. Damodar Tatyaba - (1991) 2 SCC 342, 351; Nand Singh v. Ajit Inder Singh - JT (2000)10 SC 531 ; Anang Uday Singh Deo v. Rangnath Mishra and Others JT (2001) 8 SC 574. ; Jeet Mohinder Singh v,. Paraminder Singh Jassi - (1999) 9 SCC 386. E. The provisions of Sec. 87 of the R.P. Act specifically enjoin that every Election Petition shall be tried by the High Court as nearly as may be in accordance with the procedure applicable under the C.P.C. for the trial of suits. Merely because Section 83 does not find a place in Sec. 86 (1) which enables the High Court to dismiss an Election Petition for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 81, 82 or 117, it does not mean that the powers under the C.P.C. cannot be exercised to dismiss or reject the Election Petition. Under the C.P.C. the Court has the power to act at the threshold and the said power must be exercised in appropriate cases. In regard to a matter pertaining to an elected representative of the people which is likely to inhibit him in the discharge of his duties towards the nation, the controversy should be set at rest at the earliest, if the facts of the case and the law so warrant. In a case where the election petition is lacking in any essential “material fact”, the petition can be dismissed summarily. (Vide Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi - AIR 1986 SC 1253). If the election petition does not disclose a cause of action, eventhough non- compliance of Section 83 of the R.P. Act is not a ground Election Petition No. 5 of 2009 -:7:- mentioned in Section 86, the High Court can fall back upon the provisions of the C.P.C. and reject the petition under Order VII Rule 11 C.PC. (See Lalit Kishore Chaturvedi v. Jagdish Prasad Thada - 1990 (Supp) SCC 248; Virender Nath Gautam v. Satpal Singh - (2007) 3 SCC 617. The Court can under Order VI Rule 15 C.P.C. strike out the pleadings in an election petition which does not disclose any cause of action. If after striking out the pleadings no triable issue remains to be considered , the Court can reject the petition under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. (Dhartipukar Madan Lal Agarwal v. Shri Rajiv Gandhi - AIR 1987 SC 1577; Surinder Singh v. Mardial Singh - 1985 (1) SCC 91). F. The distinction between “material facts” and “ full particulars” should not be overlooked. “Material facts” are primary or basic facts which must be pleaded by the party in support of the case set up by him either to prove his cause of action or his defence. “Particulars” on the other hand are details in support of “material facts” pleaded by the party. They amplify, refine and embellish “material facts” by giving distinctive touch to the basic contours of a picture already drawn so as to make it full, more clear and more informative (See Mahadeorao Sukaji v. Ramaratan Bapsu - (2004) 7 SCC 181. All facts which are essential to clothe the petitioner with a complete cause of action are material facts (See paragraph 15 of V.S. Achuthanandan v. Francis - (1999) 3 SCC 737). Material facts and particulars together constitute the facts to be proved or “facta probanda”. It is different from the evidence by which those facts are to be Election Petition No. 5 of 2009 -:8:- proved viz., “facta probantia” . (Para 38 of Chinna Swamy v. Palani Swamy - (2004) 6 SCC 341); Virender nath Gautam v. Satpal Singh and Others (2007) 3 SCC 617. While failure to plead material facts is fatal to the Election Petition and no amendment of the pleadings can be allowed to introduce such “material facts” after the expiry of the time limit prescribed for filing the Election Petition. The absence of “full particulars” can be cured at a later stage by introducing the same through appropriate amendment ( L.R. Shivaramagowda v. T.M. Chandrasekhar - (1999) 1 SCC 666; A Sapna v. Singora (1991) 3 SCC 375 ; Gajanan Krishnaji Bapat v.Dattaji Raghobaji Meghe - (1995) 5 SCC 347) G. Concise and specific pleadings setting out all the relevant material facts is indispensable in an election petition since, the election petition if allowed, nullifies the success of a candidate and is, therefore, a serious remedy. An election petition must therefore precisely allege all material facts on which the petitioner relies on in support of a plea that the result of the election has been materially affected on account of the conduct of the opposite party. [Para 15 of Santhosh Yadav v. Narender Singh - (2002) 1 SCC 160.] Concise statement of material facts means the entire bundle of facts which would constitute a complete cause of action. (Para 77 of Har Kirat Singh v. Amarinder Singh - (2005) 13 SCC 551). H. Pleadings which are vague are liable to be struck off under Order VI Rule 16 C.P.C. R.P. Act is a complete and Election Petition No. 5 of 2009 -:9:- self contained Code . The election petitioner should not be permitted to have a fishing expedition or a roving enquiry without the requisite pleadings. (Madhava Kurup v. Muraleedharan - 1990 (2) KLT 112; Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi - AIR 1986 SC 1253). I. Order VIII Rule 5 C.P.C. is not applicable to an election petition (Dr. Jagjit Singh v. G.K. Singh - AIR 1966 SC 773). But Order VIII Rules 1, 8 and 9 as judicially interpreted are applicable to election trials (Kailash v. Nanhku - (2005) 4 SCC 480. J. Where the Court finds that neither the material facts nor the full particulars are stated in the election petition , the petition can be dismissed for not disclosing the cause of action. (Para 21 of Subash Desai v. Sarad Rao - AIR 1994 SC 2277). An election petition can be dismissed summarily if it does not disclose any cause of action (Abraham Kriakose v. P.T. Thomas - 1991 (2) KLT 650). Election Petition alleging corrupt practice is liable to be dismissed if there is omission to state material facts or give full particulars. (Subash Desai v. Sharad J. Rao - AIR 1994 SC 2277). K . Omission of a single material fact leads to incomplete cause of action and the statement of claims becomes bad. (Vide S.N. Balakrishna v. George Fernandez - AIR 1969 SC 1201). Failure to plead a single material fact is fatal (Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi - AIR 1986 SC 1253). L. To enable the Court to reject an election petition for Election Petition No. 5 of 2009 -:10:- non disclosure of cause of action , the election petition alone should be looked into and it is the duty of the Court to do so without a written statement by the opposite party. (Para 24 of Hari Shankar Jain v. Sonia Gandhi - (2001) 8 SCC 233). M. In stating the “material facts”, merely quoting the words of the Section is not sufficient. The facts which constitute the corrupt practice must be stated and the facts must be co-related to one of the heads of corrupt practice. (S.N. Balakrishna's case - supra). N. Section 100 of the R.P. Act enumerates the grounds for declaring an election to be void by the High Court. “Corrupt practice” which is elaborately defined under Sec. 123 of the R.P. Act is a ground under Sec. 100 of the R.P. Act. Clause (1) (b) of Section 100 constitutes the ground for declaring an election to be void on the ground of “corrupt practice” if such corrupt practice has been committed by a returned candidate or his election agent or by any other person with the consent of the returned candidate or his election agent. O. The entirety of averments that the publication was made by the returned candidate or his election agent or by any other person with the consent of the candidate or his election agent of any statement of fact which is false, which he either believes to be false or does not believe to be true in relation to the personal character or conduct of the candidate, would constitute “material facts”. (Ravinder Singh v. Jarmeja Singh - AIR 2000 SC 3026). Election Petition No. 5 of 2009 -:11:- Mere proof of corrupt practice by an agent other than the returned candidate's election agent is not sufficient. It should further be shown that such corrupt practice has materially affected the result of the election in so far as it concerns the returned candidate. [Section 100 (1) (d)]. Where the above aspect is not pleaded the election petitioner cannot be permitted to adduce evidence to that effect. [Shivaramagowda's case (supra)]. P. A “statement of fact” for the purpose of Section 123 (4) can only be a past event capable of being proved to be false and cannot be a hypothetical future apprehension or the conjecture of a likelihood in future . (Gadak's case - AIR 1994 SC 678). Q. If a false statement is made in regard to a public or political character of the candidate, it would not constitute corrupt practice under Sec. 123 (4) of the R.P.Act. (Lalit Kishore Chaturvedi v. Jadish Prasad - (1990) Supp. SCC 248; K. Yaswant Rao v. Vikhe Patil - AIR 1994 SC 678). R. Consent is the life line to link up the candidate with the action of the other person. Without such consent it may not amount to corrupt practice. Hence, such consent should be specifically pleaded and proved. (Para 20 of Azhar Hussain's case) (supra). S. It is the candidate's belief which matters under Section 123 (4) of the R.P. Act (Paras 42 and 43 of S.N. Balakrishna's case (supra). Election Petition No. 5 of 2009 -:12:- T. Failure to prove that the impugned statement of fact is not only false but also that the respondent returned candidate and his agents publishing the impugned statement s either believed the statement to be false or did not believe them to be true, is fatal and the impugned statement will not fall within the mischief of Sec. 123 (4) of the R.P. Act (Mangilal v. Krishnaji Rao - AIR 1971 SC 1943). Thus, the belief of the candidate that the statement is false or is not true is a “material fact “ which has to be pleaded and proved and omission to plead the above material fact is fatal to the election petition. (See Sheonath Singh v. Ram Pratap- AIR 1965 SC 677, paragraph 17 of Kumara Nand v. Brijmohan Lal Sharma - AIR 1967 SC 808, paragraphs 20 and 21 of Raghunath Singh v. Krishna Chandra Sharma - AIR 1971 SC 1839, paragraph 19 of Dr. Jagjit Singh v. Giani Kartar Singh and Others - AIR 1966 SC 773 and paragraph 7 of Ravinder Singh v. Janmeja Singh and Others - AIR 2000 SC 3026). U. For non - disclosure of cause of action the Court has the power to reject the petition at any stage and starting of trial or settlement of issues is no bar to the exercise of the above power. (K.K. Somanathan v. K.K. Ramachandran Master - AIR 1988 Kerala 259). V. For a person to be considered as an agent of a particular candidate, such person should have been employed by the candidate in connection with the election. Election Petition No. 5 of 2009 -:13:- Employment is essential for his being treated as an agent. The mere fact that some persons assist a candidate or that they support him does not by itself make them his agents. (Gervasis v. Augustine - 1971 KLT (SN) 51 and Suresh Babu v. Baby John - 1983 KLT (SN) 6. W. The word “appeal” to constitute a corrupt practice under Section 123 (3) and (3A) should be an appeal to the religion of the returned candidate . The necessary ingredient is the presence of religious hatred dividing two or more religious communities using the religion of the returned candidate. [Para 12 of Zaiudheen Bukhari v. Brij Mohan Ramdas - (1976) 2 SCC 17.] X. Mere appeal to religion is no corrupt practice. It becomes a corrupt practice only if there is appeal on the ground of the religion of the candidate . (Paras 11, 13 and 16 of Dr. Yashwant Prabhu v. P.K. Kunte - AIR 1986 SC 1113). y. An appeal on the ground of religion must be by the candidate or his election agent . If it is by any other person consent must be specifically alleged with full details. A bald and omnibus statement of