KIMNEO HAOKIP HANGSHING  [APPELLANT] Vs.  KENN RAIKHAN & ORS.  [RESPONDENTS]

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2024 (Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 20580 of 2023)

(2JB, SUDHANSHU DHULIA and AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH JJ., delivered by SUDHANSHU DHULIA J.)

In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of BJP MLA Kimneo Haokip Hangshing, who sought the rejection of an election petition filed against her in the Manipur High Court. Hangshing was elected from the Saikul Assembly Constituency during the 2022 Manipur Legislative Assembly elections on a BJP ticket. However, her victory was challenged by her electoral opponent, Kenn Raikhan, who alleged that Hangshing had failed to disclose her assets properly in her nomination papers and had engaged in corrupt practices.

Raikhan’s petition argued that Hangshing had made investments worth Rs. 2 crore, but these were not mentioned in her election nomination. Furthermore, Raikhan questioned the income disclosure made by Hangshing, who had declared zero income for the fiscal year 2021-22 despite being employed as a Committee Officer in the Manipur Legislative Assembly until the end of December 2021. Based on these allegations, the respondent contended that Hangshing’s non-compliance with Section 33 of the Representation of the People Act (RPA), which mandates the disclosure of accurate and complete information by candidates, should render her election invalid.

During the proceedings, Hangshing filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), seeking to have the petition dismissed on the grounds that it lacked specific allegations of corrupt practices and did not sufficiently address the concealment of her assets or income. However, the Manipur High Court rejected this application, determining that the issues raised by Raikhan, such as whether Hangshing had properly declared her income and assets, required a full trial and examination of evidence. The High Court concluded that these were triable issues, not matters that could be dismissed summarily.

Hangshing appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, asserting that the election petition should have been dismissed at the threshold for failing to comply with Section 83 of the RPA, which requires election petitions to be accompanied by an affidavit detailing corrupt practices. Hangshing argued that the petition did not meet these criteria and should be rejected for lack of compliance.

However, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court, noting that Raikhan’s election petition had disclosed a cause of action and that there was substantial compliance with the procedural requirements under the RPA. The bench, consisting of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, stated that while strict adherence to procedural rules is important, substantial compliance is sufficient to move the case forward. They emphasized that the allegations regarding Hangshing’s failure to disclose her assets and income constituted a triable issue, and the election petition could not be dismissed at this preliminary stage.

In reaching its decision, the Court referred to a previous ruling in Thangjam Arunkumar vs Yumkham Erabot Singh, where it held that the failure to submit an affidavit under the proviso to Section 83(1)(c) of the RPA did not mandate the dismissal of an election petition if there was substantial compliance with the provisions. As a result, the Supreme Court dismissed Hangshing’s appeal, allowing the election petition to proceed to trial.