Holding

The petition fails to allege undue influence committed by the returned candidate or with his consent and therefore discloses no cause of action, warranting its rejection under Rule 6 of Order XXIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966.

Summary

In the 1987 Presidential election, R. Venkataraman was declared elected. Candidate Mithilesh Kumar filed an election petition under the Presidential and Vice‑Presidential Elections Act, 1952, alleging that a whip issued by the Congress (I) party amounted to undue influence and vitiated the election. The petition, however, failed to specifically allege that the returned candidate himself, or any person acting with his consent, committed the offence of undue influence, as required by Section 18(1)(a) of the Act. The Court held that the petition did not disclose any cause of action and, pursuant to Rule 6 of Order XXIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, must be rejected. The judgment also clarified that “connivance” and “consent” are distinct concepts, and the amendment replacing “connivance” with “consent” underscores this distinction. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

The petition discloses a cause of action under Section 18(1)(a) of the Presidential and Vice‑Presidential Elections Act, 1952.
Whether the alleged party whip constitutes undue influence committed with the consent of the returned candidate.
Whether the petition should be rejected under Rule 6 of Order XXIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. Chapter IXA
Presidential and Vice‑Presidential Elections Act, 1952s. 14, s. 18(1)(a), s. 19
Presidential and Vice‑Presidential Elections (Amendment) Act, 1974s. 7
Supreme Court Rules, 1966s. Order XXIII, s. Order XXXIX, s. Rule 34, s. Rule 6

Subjects

election petitionpresidential electionundue influenceconsentconnivanceSupreme Court RulesSection 18petition dismissedcause of actionpolitical party whip

Judgment

. MITHILESH KUMAR
,A
v. A
SRI R. VENKATARAMAN & ORS.

OCTOBER 16, 1987

[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, RANGANATH MISRA, B
G.L. OZA, M.M. DUTT AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.]
t
The Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Ad, 1952-s.
18(1)(a)-Read with r. 34, O.XXXIX, and r.6, O.XXIll, of the
Supreme Court Rules, 1966-Plea for setting aside an election on the
ground of commission of offence of 'undue influence'-·Petition liable
to be rejected if it does not contain a specific averment that either the c
t returned candidate himself had committed any act of 'undue influence'
or any other person had committed any act of 'undue influence' with his
consent.

Part III of the Presidential and Vice-Presideatial Elections Act, D
1952 sets out the provisions relating to the settlelMnt of disputes re-
garding elections to the olllces of the President and the Vice-President
of India. Section 14(3) thereof requires that an election petition should
be presented in accordance with the provisions of that Part and of the
rules made by this Court under Art. 145 of the Constitution. The rules
~ so made are contained in O.XXXIX of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966. E
Rule 34 thereof provides that subject to the provisions Qf that ()rder or
any Special Order or directions of the Court, the procedµre on an
election petition shall follow, as neu-ly as may be, the procedure in
proceedlnp before the Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction,
which procedure is set out in O.XXDI. Rule 6 of O.XXDI states inter
alia that the plaint shall be rejected where it does not dtsclose a cause of F
_j action.

Respondent No. 1 was declared elected as the President of India at
an election held in July, 1987. The petitioner who had contested in the
said election as a candidate filed this petition questioning the valdity of
the election of respondent No. 1 and praying for a declaration that he G
was the successful candidate at that election.

;._ Rejecting the petition,

HELD: In the circumstances of this case the Court bas ilo choice
except to reject the petition as recillired under r. 6 of O.XXIII of H
525
526 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 1 S.C.R.

the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 as it does not disclose any cause of' ~
A
action. f537B l

(i) Section 18 of the Presideatial and Vice-Presidential Elections
Act, 1952 is exhaustive of the grouads on which the election of the
President or the Vice-President can be declared void. An election may
B be set aside under cl.(a) of s. 18(1) if it is established that the offence of
bribery or undne influence, as explained in Chapter IXA of the Indian
Penal Code had been committed by the returned candidate or by any
person with the consent of the returned candidate. In order to succeed
on the gronnds mentioned ins. 18(1)(a) it has to be established that the :
offence of bribery or undue influence had been committed at the elec-
tion by the returned candidate himself; or by any person with his
C consent. fSJOG-H; 531A·Bl i

(ii) The manner in which the present petition has been draft~d is
1
not in accordance with the Rules. Ordinarily the petition should state in
a narrative form succinctly and clearly all the facts as· may be necessary
D to enable the respondents and the Court to understand the case of the
petitioner. This is not the ·case here. The first part of the petition con·
tains 13 questions and the answers given by the petitioner to those
questions. A reading of all these 13 questions and answers given thereto
by the petitioner shows that the only ground on which the petitioner
wished to call in question the election of the 1st respondent is that the ~
E issue of a whip by the Congress (I) Party to its legislators on the eve of ·
the election asking them to cast their votes in favour of the 1st respon-
dent was in the nature of a threat amounting to undue influence which is
one of the two grounds set oot in s. 18(l)(a). The allegations made in
this part of tbe petition sagest that the specific case of the petitioner is
that tbe said act of undue influence had been committed by the
F memben of the COlllP- (I) Party. There is no allegation that any act ~
amountinc to undue influence was committed either by respondent
No. 1 himself or by any other person with his consent. Even in the j

second part of die petition which is entitled 'Notable points' and the
third part of the petition containing grounds to declare the election of
the returned ca!Mlidate as void there is no averment that either the
G returned candidate himself had committed any act of undue influence
or any other person had committed any act of undue influence with his
consent. l532A-E]

(iii) At the bearing after getting the entire petition read out the
Court asked the petitioner to point out whether there was any allegation
H that the 1st respondent had himself committed any undue influence or
MITHILESH v. R. VENKATARAMAN [VENKATARAMIAH, J.] 527

any other person with the consent of the 1st respondent had committed A
such an act or any allegation which required to be tried and the
' in which
petitioner was not able to point out any part of the petition
such an allegation had been made. In view of this infirmity we have not
found it necessary to examine whether the issuing of the whip by an)
political party amounts to undue influence vitiating an election even
when such an act is committed by the returned candidate or with his B
consent by some other person. ls36G-H; 537Al

(iv) The petitioner did not appear to be quite serious about his
case. At one stage he contended having himself filed the petition before
the Court that this Court had no competence to hear the case and at
another stage he wanted 51 Judges to hear his petition when the
maximum permissible strength of this Court is about one-half of that C
number and the existing strength of this Court is less than one-third ol
. that number. While we expect every conscientious citizen eligible to file
an election petititon to question an election on the grounds prescribed
by the Act, we do not wish that any petitioner should make use of this
Court as a forurri to file a petition without giving adequate thought to its D
contents and also to the provisions of law governing the case merely to
seek some cheap publicity. [537C-El

Charan Lal Sahu v. Nee/am Sanjeeva Reddy, [1978] 3 S.C.R. I
. and Charan Lal Sahu & Ors. v. Giani Zail Singh & Anr., [1984] 2
S.C.R. 6; relied on. E

ORIGINAL illRISDICTION: Election Petition No. 1 of 1987.

Election Petition under Section 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of Part III
of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act 1952.
F
Petitioner-in-person (Mithilesh Kumar).

K. Parasaran, Attorney General T.S. Krishnamurthy Iyer,
Krishnamurthy Swami and Miss A. Subhashini for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by G

A VENKATARAMIAH, J. The above petition is filed by the
petitioner, Shri Mithilesh Kumar under the provisions of the Presiden-

~
. tial and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952 (Act No. 31 of 1952)
·. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') calling in question the validity of
the election of Shri R. Venkataraman, the 1st respondent herein as the H
.
528 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 1 S.C.R.

A President of India at the election held in July, 1987 for electing the
President of India and praying for a declaration that he is the success-
ful candidate at that election. There were three candidates at the elec-
tion, namely, Shri R. Venkataraman-respondent No. 1, Shri V.R.
Krishna Iyer-respondent No. 2 and Shri Mithilesh Kumar-the peti-
tioner. The result of the election was declared on 16. 7.1987 by the
B Returning Officer for Presidential Election 1987-respondent No. 4,
declaring Shri R. Venkataraman-respondent No. I as the President of
India.

The Act was passed in the year 1952 for the purpose of regulating
certain matters relating to or connected with the elections to the
offices of the President and the Vice-President of India. Part II of the
c Act contains the provisions relating to the conduct of Presidential and _,
Vice-Presidential elections and Part III of the Act sets out the provi- ,
sions relating to the settlement of disputes regarding elections to the ·
offices of the President and the Vice-President of India. Section 14 of
the Act provides that no election should be called in question except
D by presenting an election petition to the authority specified in sub-
section (2) and the authority having jurisdiction to try an election
petition under the Act is specified as the Supreme Court of India by
sub-section (2). Sub-section (3) of section 14 of the Act requires that
an election petition should be presented to the Supreme Court of India
in accordance with the provisions of Part III of the Act and of the rule~. ·
E made by the Supreme Court of India under Article 145 of the Constitu-
tion of India. Order XXXIX of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') made under Article 145 of the
Constitution of India and all other powers enabling it in this behalf by
the Supreme Court of India contains the provisions relating to the
election petitions filed under Part III of the Act. Section 14-A of the
F Act pbrovides that an election petitionfcahlling in question an e.lection ·i
may e presented on one or more o t e grounds specified m sub-
section (!)of section 18 and section 19 to the Supreme Court by any
candidate at such election or in the case of Presidential election, by
twenty or more electors joined together as petitioners and in the case
of Vice-Presidential election, by ten or more electors joined as peti-
G tioners. Such petition may be presented at any time after the date of
the publication of the declaration containing the name of the elected
candidate at the election under section 12 of the Act but not later than ·;i.
thirty days from the date of such publication. Section 15 of the Act
provides that subject to the provisions of Part III of the Act rules made
by the Supreme Court of India under Article 145 of the Constitution of
H India may regulate the form of election petitions, the manner in which
MITHILESH v. R. VENKATARAMAN [VENKATARAMIAH, J.J 529

~
they are to be presented, the persons who are to be made parties
A
thereto, the procedure to be adopted in connection therewith and the
circumstances in which petitions are to abate and to be withdrawn and
in which new petitioners may be substituted and may require security
to be given for costs. Rule 3 of Order XXXIX of the Rules prescribes
that a court-fee stamp of the value of rupees two hundred and fifty
' shall be paid on the election petition and the election petition will be B

'
signed by the petitioner or petitioners, if they are more than one, or a
duly authorised advocate-on-record on his or their behalf. Rule 4 of ,,
Order XXXIX of the Rules provides that the petition shall be divided
into paragraphs, numbered consecutively, each paragraph being con-
fined to a distinct portion of the subject, and shall be printed or typed
legibly on one side of standard petition-paper, demy-foolscap size or
t of the size of29.7 cm. x 21 cm. or on paper of equally superior quality. c
~ Rule 5 of Order XXXIX of the Rules requires that the petition shall
state the right of the petitioner under the Act to petition the Court and
briefly set forth the facts and grounds relied on by him to sustain the
reliefs claimed by him. The allegations of fact contained in the petition
shall be verified by an affidavit to be made personally by the petitioner D
· or by one of the petitioners, if there are more than one as provided
under rule 6 of Order XXXIX of the Rules. The grounds on which the
election of the returned candidate at the Presidential or the Vice-
Presidential election can be declared void are set out in section 18 of
the Act. Section 18 of the Act reads thus:-
~ •
E
"18( l). If the Supreme Court is ofopinion,-

. (a) that the offence of bribery or undue influence at
the election has been committed by the returned candidate
or by any person with the consent of the returned candi-
(
date; or F
.....,.j_
~ (b) that the result of the election has been materially
affected-

(ii) by the improper reception or refusal of a vote;
or G

~
(ii) by any non-compliance with the provisions of the
Constitution or of this Act or of any rules or orders made
under this Act; or

(iii) by reason of the fact that the nomination of any H
530 SUPREME COURT REPoRTS (1988] 1 S.C.R.

A candidate (other than the successflri candidate), who has
not withdraw_n his candidature, has been wrongly accepted;
or

(c) that the nomination of any candidate has been
wrongly rejected or the nomination of the successful candi-
B date has been wrongly accepted;

the Supreme Court shall declare the election of the
returned candidate to be void.
:
(2) For the purposes of this section, the offences of
bribery and undue influence at an election have the same
c meaning as in Chapter IXA of the Indian Penal Code."
·'1
Section 19 of the Act sets out the grounds for which a candidate
other than the returned candidate may be declared to have been
elected. Section 19 of the Act reads thus:
D
"19. Grounds for which a candidate other than the re-
turned candidate may be declared to have been elected. If
any person who has lodged an election petition has, in
addition to calling in question the election of the returned
candidate, claimed a declaration that he himself or any
E other candidate has been duly elected and the Supreme
Court is of opinion that in fact the petitioner or such other
candidate received a majority of the valid votes, the
Supreme Court shall, after declaring the election of the
returned candidate to be void, declare the petitioner or
\.
such other candidate, as the case may be, to have been duly
F elected:

Provided that the petitioner or such other candidate r'
shall not be declared to be duly elected if it is proved that
the election of such candidate would have been void if he
had been the returned candidate and a petition had been
G presented calling in question his election."

Section 18 of the Act is exhaustive of the grounds on which the _...
election of the President or the Vice-President can be declared void. ) 9
Under section 18(1)(a) an election of the President or of the Vice-
President may be set aside if it is established that the offence of bribery
H or undue influence, as explained in Chapter IXA of the Indian Penal
MITHILESH v. R. VENKATARAMAN (VENKATARAMIAH, J.J 531
I

Code had been committed by the returnoo candidate or by any person
with the consent of the returned candidate. In order to succeed on the A
grounds mentioned in section 18( !)(a) of the Act it has to be estab-
lished that the offence of bribery or undue influence had bee.n commit-
ted at the election by the returned candidate himself; or by any person
with his consent. Originally when the Act was enacted section 18(1)(a)
of the Act read thus:- · . B

-"18(1). If the Supreme Court is of opinion-

(a) that the offence of bribery or undue influence at
the election has been committed by the returned candidate
or by any person with the connivance of the returned candi- ·c
. date; or ·
.. ,, -
. . . . . . ... . . . . .... . . . . . . . . ... .. . ... . . . .... . . . . . .... . . .
;t .

.
. I ·:(.
The word 'connivance' in section 18(1)(a) of the Act w.as sub-
stituted later on by Parliament when the former Part III of the Act was D
substituted by the present Part III of the Act by the Presidential.and
the Vice-Presidential Elections (Amendment) Ad, .1977 to bring it in
line with the provisions of section 123(1) and (2) of the Representation
of the People Act,· 1951, which contain. the grounds of bribery and
undue influence which would vitiate the election to either House of
Parliament or to the Houses or House of the State Legislatures as the E
case may be. Clause (b) of section_ 18(1) of the Act contains three
grounds the proof of any of which would result in the election being
declared void prov_ided it is established that the result of the election
has been materially affected thereby, namely, (i) the improper recep-
tion or refusal of a vote; or (ii) any non-compliance with the provisions
of the Constitution or of the Act or of any rules or orders made .under F
the Act; or (iii) wrongful acceptance of the nomination of any. candi-
date (other than the successful candidate), who has not withdrawn his
candidature. Clause (c) of section 18( I) of the A~t pr~vides ihat if the
~ '· nomination of any candidate has been 'wrongly rejected or the nomina-
tion of the successful candidate has been >"rongly accepted, the elec;
tion of the returned candidate is to be declared void .. These. are the . G
only grounds on which the election of the returned candidate can be
declared void under ·the. Act. Section 19 of the Aci as stated already
. contains grounds for declaring a candidate other than the returned
candidate as duly elected.

It should be stated at the outset th~t the manner in which the H
532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988) 1 S.C.R.

A
present petition has been drafted is not in accordance with the Rules. ,.,•
Ordinarily the petition should state in a narrative form succinctly and
clearly all the facts as may be necessary to enable the respondents and
the Court to understand the case of the petitioner. This is not the case
here. The first part of the petition contains 13 questions and the ans-
wers given by the petitioner to those questions. A reading of all these
B 13 questions and answers given thereto by the petitioner shows that
the only ground on which the petitioner wished to call in question the
election of the 1st respondent is that the issue of a whip by the Con-
~
gress (I) Party to its legislators on the eve of the election asking them
to cast their votes in favour ~f the 1st respondeqt was in the nature of a
threat amounting to undue influence which is one of the two grounds
set out in section 18( 1)(a) of the Act. The allegations made in this part
c of the petition suggest that the specific case of the petitioner is that the
said act of undue influence had been committed by the members of the
Congress (I) Party. There is no allegation that any act amounting to
undue influence was committed either by respondent No. 1 himself, or
by any other person with h·is consent. Even in the second part of the
1
D petition which is entitled 'Notable points' and the third part of the
petition containing grounds to declare the election of the returned
candidate as void, there is·no averment that either the returned candi-
date himself had committed any act of undue influence or any other
person had committed any act of undue influence with his consent. The
fourth part of the petition contains grounds to declare the petitioner as )_
E duly elected. It is alleged in this part that by reason of the issue of the
whip by the Congress (I) Party and/or by other parties the votes which
would have been cast in his favour had been grabbed by the other
candidates. The fifth part of the petition contains the reliefs sought by
the petitioner and the last part contains the prayer for an interim order
directing the staying of the oath ceremony of the returned candidate
F which had been fixed to take place on the 25th of July, 1987. There is
no reference to any other ground mentioned in section 18 of the Act on
the basis of which the election can be set aside.
}
After the petition was presented to this Court notice was issued
to the respondents and also to the Attorney-General of India as pro-
G vided in rule 14 of Order XXXIX of the Rules. After the service of the
notices on the respondents, the 1st respondent filed before this Court a
statement containing the preliminary objections to the petition. The ._...
Attorney-General of India also filed his statement of preliminary sub- /Ill
missions to the petition. The preliminary objections of the 1st respon-
dent and the preliminary submissions of the Attorney-General of India
H cover almost the same grounds. It is contended by them that the peti-
MITHILESH v. R. VENKATARAMAN [VENKATARAMIAH, J.) 533

tion is liable to be rejected at this stage itself since it does not disclose A
any cause of action. Rule 34 of Order XXXIX of the Rules provides
that subject to the provisions of Order XXXIX of the Rules or any
special order or directions of the Court, the procedure on an election
petition shall follow, as nearly as may be, the procedure in proceedings
before the Court in the exercise of its original jurisdictio'1. Order
XXIII of the Rules contains the rules of pleadings in cases filed under B
~ the original jurisdiction of this Court. Rule 6 of Order XXIII of the
Rules states that the plaint shall be rejected where it does not disclose
a cause of action or where the suit appears from the statement in the
plaint to be barred by any law. It is stated in the preliminary objections
of the 1st respondent and the preliminary submissions of the Attomey-
General of ·1ndia that since no where in the election petition the
petitioner has stated that the offence of undue influence had been C
I.'

!'- committed by the 1st respondent or by any other person with his
'

consent and since no other ground specified in section 18 of the Act has
been pleaded, the petition is liable to be rejected under rule 6 of Order
XXIII of the Rules even assuming that all that the petitioner has stated
in his petition is true. D

After the preliminary objections of the !st respondent and the
preliminary submissions of the Attorney-General of India were filed,
the case was taken up for hearing on the said preliminary objections
~ and preliminary submissions. The petitioner Shri Mithilesh Kumar (in
' person), Shri T.S. Krishnamurthy Iyer, learned counsel for respon- E
dent No. 1 and Shri K. Parasaran, learned Attorney-General of India
were heard.

The issue which arises for consideration in this case is whether
the election petition is liable to be rejected under rule 6 of Order
l X~III of the Rules on the ground that it does not disclose any cause of F
~ actton.

The question of law involved in this case is no longer res integra.
In Charan Lal Sahu v. Nee/am Sanjeeva Reddy, [1978] 3 S.C.R. 1 the
petitioner in that petition had questioned the election of Shri Neelam
Sanjeeva Reddy as the President of India. In that decision this Court G
held that it was obligatory upon the Court to reject a petition outright
and not to waste any more time upon a plaint or petition if the provi-
sions of law bar or are shown to bar the proceedings. The Court
proceeded to hold that it was not even necessary to issue notice to any
opposite party or parties in such a case. The next decision in Charan
Lal Sahu & Others v. Giani Zail Singh & Another, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 6 H
534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988) 1 S.C.R.

deals wit~ facts which are very close to the facts of the present case. In
A
the said ·cuse two issues arose for consideration: (i) can the election of
a candid.:;.le to the office of the President of India be challenged on the
ground that he is not a suitable person for holding that office; and (ii)
whether the averments in that election petition, assuming them to be
true and correct, disclose any cause of action for setting aside the
B election of the returned candidate on the ground stated in section
18(1)(a) of the.Act. This Court observed in that case that the rights -.i
arising out of elections, including the right to contest or challenge an
election, were not common law rights, but they were creatures of the
statutes which created, conferred or limited those rights. Therefore,
for deciding the question whether an election can be set aside on any
alleged ground, the court has to consult the provisions of law govern- ~
c ing the particular election. The Court has to function within the
framework of that law and cannot travel beyond it. The Court pro-
ceeded to observe in the above decision thus at Pages 22 to 24:-

"Nor is it alleged that the offence of undue influence
D was committed by the returned candidate himself. The
allegation of the petitioners is that the offence of undue
influence was committed by certain supporters and close
associates of Respondent 1 with his connivance. It is patent
that this allegation, even if it is true, is not enough to fulfil
the requirements of section 18(1)(a). What that section, to ).
E the extent relevant, requires is that the offence of undue '
influence must be committed by some other person with
the 'consent' of the returned candidate. There is no plea
whatsoever in the petition that undue influence was exer- "'"
cise.d by those other persons with the consent of Respon-
dent 1.
F
It is contended by Shri Shujatullah Khan who appears )ii.
on behalf of the petitioners, that connivance and consent
are one and the same thing and that, there is no legal dis-
tinction between the two concepts. In support of this con-
tention, learned counsel relies upon the meaning of the
G word 'connivance' as given in Webster's Dictionary (Third
Edition, Volume l, p 481); Random House (p. 311);
Black's Law Dictionary (p. 274); Words and Phrases (Per-_....
manent Edition, Volume SA, p. 173); and Corpus Juris,,..
Secundum (Volume 15A, p. 567). The reliance on these
dictionaries and texts cannot carry the point at issue any
H further. The relevant question for consideration for the
MITHILESH v. R. VENKATARAMAN [VENKATARAMIAH, l.l · 535

decision of the issue is whether there is any pleading in the
A
petition to the effect that the offence of undue influence
was committed with the consent of the returned candidate.
Admittedly, there is no pleading of consent. It is then no
answer to say that the petitioners have pleaded connivance
and according to dictionaries, connivance means consent.
The plea of consent is one thing: the fact that connivance B
L means consent (assuming that it does) is quite another. It is
not open to a petitioner in an Election Petition to plead in
terms of synonyms. In these petitions, pleadings have to be
precise, specific and unambiguous so as to put the respon-
dent on notice. The rule of pleadings that facts constituting
the. cause of action must be specifically pleaded is as funda-
mental as it is elementary. 'Connivance' may in certain c
situations amount to consent which explains why the
dictionaries give 'consent' as one of the meanings of the
word 'connivance'. But it is not true to say that 'conni-
vance' invariably and necessarily means or amounts to con-
sent, that is to say, irrespective of the context of the given D
situation. The two cannot, therefore, be equated. Consent
imply that parties ad idem. Connivance does not necessar-
ily imply that parties are of one mind. They may or may not
be, depending upon the facts of the situation. That is why,
in the absence of a pleading that the offence of undue influ-
ence as committed with the consent of the returned candi- E
date, one of the main ingredients of section 18(1)(a) re-
mains unsatisfied.

The importance of a specific pleading in these matters
can be appreciated only if it is realised that the absence of a
specific plea puts the respondent at a great disadvantage. p
He must know what case he has to meet. He cannot be kept
guessing whether the petitioner means what he says, 'con-
nivance' here, or whether the petitioner has used expres-
sion as ·meaning 'consent'. It is remarkable that, in their
petition, the petitioners have furnished no particulars of
the alleged consent, if what is meant by the nse of the word G
connivance is consent. They cannot be allowed to keep
their options open until the trial and adduce such evidence
of consent as seems convenient and comes handy. That is
the importance of precision in pleadings, particularly in
election petitions. Accordingly, it is impermissible to sub-
stitute the word 'consent' for the word 'connivance which H
536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988) 1 S.C.R.

A
occurs in the pleadings of the petitioners. J
The legislative history of the statute lends support to
our view that for the purposes of section 18(1)(a), conni-
vance is not the same thing as consent. Originally, when
the Act was.passed in 1952, section 18(1)(a) provided that
B the Supreme Court shall declare the election of the re-
turned. candidate void if it is of opinion that the offence of J
bribery or undue influence has been committed by the re-
turned candidate or by any person 'with the connivance' of
the returned candidate. This sub-section was amended by
section 7 of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elec-
tions (Amendment) Act 5 of 1974, which came into force
c on March 23, 1974. The word 'connivance' was substituted I
by the word 'consent' by the Amendment Act. If conni- --1
vance carried the same meaning as consent and if one was \
the same as the other Parliament would not have taken the
deliberate step of deleting the word 'connivance' and sub-
D stituting it by the word 'consent'. The amendment made by
the Amendment Act of 1974 shows that connivance and
consent connote distinct concepts for the purpose of sec-
tion 18(1)(a) of the Act.

Since, admittedly, there is no pleading in the Election ).
E Petition that the offence of undue influence was committed
with the consent of the returned candidate, the petition
must be held to disclose no cause of action for setting aside
the election of the returned candidate under section 18(1)
(a) of the Act."

F We have given above a fairly long quotation from the above
decision because it contains all the reasons necessary to decide this J.-
case too. We do not propose to repeat them. They are applicable to-I
this case also. In the petition before us there is not even an allegation
that the act of undue influence had been committed by some persons
with the connivance of the 1st respondent. The petition is as bald as it
G could be. At the hearing after getting the entire petition read out the
Court asked the petitioner to point out whether there was any allega-
tion that the 1st respondent had himself committed any undue influ- ...
ence or any other person with the consent of the 1st respondent had ~
committed such an act or any allegation which required to be tried and
the petitioner was not able to point out any part of the petition in
H which such an allegation had been made. In view of this infirmity we
MITHILESH v. R. VENKATARAMAN [VENKATARAMIAH, J.] 537

have not found it necessary to examine whether the issuing of the whip A
by any JX>litical party amounts to undue influence vitiating an election
even when such an act is committed by the returned candidate or with
his consent by some other persons.

In the circumstances, the Court has no choice except to reject the
petition as required under rule 6 of Order XXIII of the Rules as it does B
not disclme any cause of action.
L
Befme concluding we should observe that the petitioner did not
appear to be quite serious about his case. At one stage he contended
having himself filed the petition before the Court that this Court had
no competmce to hear the case and at another stage he wanted 51 c
' Judges to !ear his petition when the maximum permissible strength of

/- this Court ii about one-half of that number and the existing strength of
this Court s less than one-third of that number. Rule 20 of order
XXXIX of Ile Rules requires that every petition calling in question an
election to ue offices of the President and the Vice-President shall be
posted before and be heard and disposed of by a Bench of this Court D
consisting of not less than five Judges. While we expect every cons-
cientious citizen eligible to file an election petition to question an
election on the grounds prescribed by the Act, we do not wish that any
petitioner should make use of this Court as a forum to file a petition
witho1t giving adequate thought to its contents and also to the provi-
sions 1f law governing the case merely to seek some cheap publicity, E
We ngret to say that seeing one's name in newspapers everyday has
lately become the worst intoxicant and the number of people who have
bemme victims of it is increasing day by day .. We, however, refrain
iron referring to some other irrelevant and unwarranted statements
male by him before this Court orally and in writing. Perhaps the
peitioner who desired to become the President of India did not under- F
stad the effect of what he was saying. We shall leave it at that.

The petition is, therefore, rejected.

H ... C. Petition dismissed.