The returning election candidate/Respondent was accused of violating the moral code of conduct by the Petitioner, who filed the election petition. It was argued that the Respondent gave unpleasant comments to divide two communities along religious and racial lines, giving him an advantage over the Petitioner in the election process.
The Petitioner failed to include the affidavit with the election petition as required by Section 94-A of the Act. Later, he filed a request for revision under Order VI Rule 17.
He stated that the provision under Section 83 (Contents of Petition) of the Act is not a necessary component of the election petition to support his claim. He added that the application was submitted to support rather than fill up the gaps in the petition's arguments.
In contrast, the Respondent said that although while the Petitioner claimed that the “Returning Candidate” had broken the moral code of conduct, his petition was actually asking for the election to be declared null and void due to corrupt practises.
Furthermore, it was claimed that the petitioner had disregarded Section 94-A of the Act's requirements by omitting certain details from his petition and by failing to include the affidavit. It was argued that he could not be permitted to file more documents to fill in any gaps in his case because doing so would also violate the statute of limitations.
Examining the submissions of parties and documents on record, the Court observed that the Petitioner had nowhere demonstrated in his petition that the Respondent had indulged in any kind of "corrupt practices"
However, noting the same, the Court opined that since the Petitioner had not made any pleading regarding corrupt practices, therefore, it could not be said that there was any violation of Section 83 of the Act.