Case at a Glance
The returned candidate sought rejection of an election petition at the threshold, arguing that it did not plead how the alleged violations materially affected the result and that breach of Election Commission instructions — including the instruction not to engage children in campaigning — can at most be an election offence. The Madras High Court dismissed the application, holding that instructions issued to a candidate in exercise of statutory powers under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 “are binding on the candidate, as it has a statutory force,” and that material effect can be judged only after trial.
Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi filed Election Petition No. 28 of 2026 challenging the election of Vijayakumar alias Navalpattu S. Viji, the returned candidate. The petition raised four grounds; one was that instructions had been given not to engage children during the election campaign and that the returned candidate violated them. The order does not set out the other grounds or the constituency.
The returned candidate filed O.A. No. 933 of 2026 under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC read with Section 87(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, seeking rejection of the petition. Relying on Vashist Narain Sharma v. Dev Chandra, (1954) 05 SC CK 0009, he argued the petition did not plead how any ground materially affected the election; relying on Bashiruddin Halhipparga v. Rajasehkhar Basavaraj Patil, (2004) 07 KAR CK 0062, he argued that violation of instructions carries no consequence beyond a possible election offence. The election petitioner, citing S. Subramaniam Balaji v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2013) 07 SC CK 0086 and Arikala Narasa Reddy v. Venkata Ram Reddy Reddygari, (2014) 02 SC CK 0064, accepted that ECI instructions are not ‘law’ as such but argued that instructions issued under Article 324 in exercise of statutory functions bind Returning Officers and candidates.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can an election petition be rejected at the threshold because breach of Election Commission instructions is said to have no statutory force, or because material effect on the result is not pleaded?
Statutory Force First, Material Effect After Trial
Justice K. Kumaresh Babu distinguished Vashist Narain Sharma v. Dev Chandra as a judgment rendered after final disposal of the petition and recording of evidence, not at the pleading stage. The sequence, the Court explained, is that the grounds must first be substantiated; only then can the court examine whether the substantiated allegations materially affected the election.
On the nature of ECI instructions, the Court held that instructions issued to a candidate in exercise of statutory powers under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 “are binding on the candidate, as it has a statutory force.” The particulars of the alleged violation had been pleaded, and their truth could be tested only at trial. Where a violation is found, the court may treat it as having materially affected the election — but that decision can be taken only after the trial is complete. The application was therefore “devoid of merits.”
What the Court Actually Held
- Instructions issued to a candidate by the Election Commission in exercise of statutory powers under the RP Act, 1951 bind the candidate and have statutory force.
- Whether alleged violations materially affected the result can be decided only after the allegations are substantiated at trial.
- Vashist Narain Sharma v. Dev Chandra was distinguished as a post-trial decision.
- The application to reject the election petition was dismissed; the returned candidate must file his reply in four weeks and both sides must file witness lists within two weeks thereafter.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Candidates cannot treat ECI campaign instructions — such as the bar on using children — as mere guidance without electoral consequences.
- It confirms that threshold rejection under Order VII Rule 11 is not the stage to weigh material effect on an election result.
- The election petition will now proceed to trial on evidence.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Candidates and Parties
- Follow ECI campaign instructions strictly; breach can be pleaded in an election petition, not just as an election offence.
- Keep records showing compliance, including on the use of children in campaigns.
- A reply to the petition and witness lists follow a fixed timeline once rejection fails.
For Counsel
- Plead particulars of each violation of ECI instructions with precision.
- Use the distinction between pleading-stage and post-trial rulings when Vashist Narain Sharma is cited.
- Note the Court’s reliance on Article 324 and statutory powers under the RP Act, 1951.
Key Takeaways
- ECI instructions issued under statutory powers bind candidates.
- Material effect is decided after trial, not at the Order VII Rule 11 stage.
- The rejection application was dismissed as devoid of merits.
- Reply in four weeks; witness lists in two weeks thereafter.
Frequently Asked Questions
Are Election Commission instructions legally binding on candidates?
According to this order, instructions issued to a candidate in exercise of statutory powers under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 are binding and have statutory force.
Can an election petition be rejected for not pleading material effect?
Not at the threshold in this case. The Court held that the allegations must first be proved at trial, and only then can it decide whether they materially affected the result.
What happens next in the election petition?
The returned candidate must file his reply within four weeks, and both parties must file lists of witnesses within two weeks after that.
Conclusion
The ruling keeps the election petition alive and makes clear that campaign instructions — including the one against engaging children — are not toothless. Whether any violation actually affected the result remains a question for trial.
Practical takeaway: In an election petition, plead the particulars of every breach of ECI instructions; a rejection plea based on ‘no statutory force’ or ‘no material effect’ is unlikely to succeed at the threshold.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com