APPELLANT’S ELECTION CHALLENGED OVER ASSET NON-DISCLOSURE

by Nancy Sharma | Sep 24, 2024

ASPECTS	DETAILS
Case Title	Kimneo Haokip Hangshing v. Kenn Raikhan & Ors.
Introduction	The respondent challenged the appellant’s election to the Manipur Legislative Assembly due to allegations of non-disclosure of assets and corrupt practices in the election.
Factual Background	Appellant: Kimneo Haokip Hangshing, MLA elected from 46-Saikul Assembly Constituency (Manipur) in the 2022 elections. Respondent: Kenn Raikhan, a fellow candidate. Allegations: The respondent claimed the appellant failed to disclose assets worth Rs. 2 crore and misrepresented income in her nomination papers.
Legal Issues	Whether the appellant failed to disclose assets and indulged in corrupt practices. Whether the election petition could be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Whether substantial compliance with Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act (RPA) was achieved.
Applicable Law	Order VII Rule 11 of CPC– Grounds for rejection of a plaint. Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951– Requirements for filing election petitions, including disclosure of corrupt practices and accompanying affidavits.
Analysis	The Supreme Court ordered that the election petition disclosed a cause of action and that there was substantial compliance with Section 83 of the RPA. The issues raised needed to be determined through trial, rejecting the appellant’s argument for dismissal under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Conclusion	The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court of Manipur’s ruling that the election petition disclosed triable issues. The petition would proceed to trial.
Current Scenario	The case will proceed to trial to resolve the allegations raised in the election petition.

CASE SUMMARY – In this case, the appellant’s election to the Manipur Legislative Assembly was challenged for non-disclosure of assets and corrupt practices. The appellant sought dismissal of the petition under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, claiming lack of cause of action. The Supreme Court upheld the Manipur High Court’s decision, stating that there was substantial compliance with Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The appeal was dismissed, and the election petition was allowed to proceed to trial.

SOURCE – SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

← ALL COURTS TO STOP USING THE TERM "CHILD PORNOGRAPHY" IN JUDGMENTS DIRECTED BY SC SEEKING ANSWERS ON STUBBLE BURNING RESUMPTION BY SC →

Written By Nancy Sharma

I am Nancy Mahavir Sharma, a passionate legal writer and , a judicial service aspirant who is interested in legal researching and writing. I have completed Latin Legum Magister degree. I have been writing from past few years and I am excited to share my legal thoughts and opinions here. I believe that everyone has the potential to make a difference.