Facebook ‘selfie’ with EVM not enough to overturn election result: Orissa High Court

“The allegation of corrupt practice in the election petition lacks substance, as Facebook photographs in question, despite forming an integral part of the pleading, have not been included in the election petition while serving a copy of it along with the copy of the election petition upon the candidate concerned,” the order read.

Photographs cannot be treated as supplementary pieces of evidence of material facts pleaded, the court held. (Image is enhanced using AI)

‘Petitioner has pleaded incomplete contents’

• The documents (photographs) do not comply with the requirements laid down under the provisions of the RP Act, 1951.
• The petition served upon the winning candidate does not contain the said documents (photographs) on which the petitioner seeks to rely.
• The documents should be annexed to the petition at the time of presentation, and a copy should be served upon the winning candidate along with the petition.
• The petitioner has not pleaded the complete contents, context, or particulars of the alleged photographs in the body of the election petition.
• In the absence of the above-mentioned, the photographs cannot be treated as supplementary pieces of evidence of material facts pleaded.

‘Election petition is a serious matter’

• The election petition does not disclose the official position or capacity in which the winning candidate is allegedly deployed on election duty, or the nexus between him and the returned candidate.
• The plea is conspicuously silent as to the date, time and place where the alleged photographs were taken.
• There is no verification as to whether the photographs were taken before, during or after polling, or whether they were taken during a mock poll or any authorised demonstration.
• There is also no pleading explaining how the alleged acts materially affected the election or had any bearing on the result of the election, which is requisite for invoking the ground of corrupt practice. 
• The plea is silent in the manner in which the winning candidate is stated to have exercised any influence and control over him.
• The allegations are vague and non-specific without disclosing the material facts in support of the same.
• It is the settled principle of election law that an election petition must comply strictly with the requirement of stating material facts.
• An election petition is a serious matter; it cannot be treated lightly or used as a tool for vexatious purposes.
• The contention raised by the petitioner within the ambit of Section 123 (Defines various corrupt practices) of the RP Act, 1951, is untenable.  
• The election petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of the RP Act.
• It is unnecessary to examine the other grounds raised in the election petition. 
• The winning candidate’s plea is allowed; the election petition is dismissed.

‘Compromising elections’s secrecy and sanctity ’

• An election petition was filed by a man for declaring the election of the winning candidate as void and for directing re-election with respect to 12-Rourkela Assembly Constituency to the Odisha State Legislative Assembly.
• The election of the winning candidate was questioned principally on two grounds: improper acceptance of nomination by the returning officer and corrupt practice under provisions of the RP Act, 1951.
• The election petition stated that a close associate of the winning candidate and a government official deployed on election duty committed acts amounting to corrupt practice under Section 123  of the RP Act by posting “selfie” photographs on Facebook displaying an open EVM and VVPAT machine, thereby compromising the secrecy and sanctity of the voting process.
• Pursuant to notice, the winning candidate entered an appearance and filed his written statement, and additionally filed the present application.

‘Pleadings were vague, bald, imprecise’

• The winning candidate contended that the copy of the election petition didn’t constitute an attested ‘true copy’ under the provisions of the RP Act, 1951.
• The candidate concerned further urged that the pleadings were vague, bald, imprecise, lacking in material facts, material particulars, and supporting documents.
• Therefore, the election petition failed to disclose the complete cause of action as required under the provisions of the RP Act. 
• He also asserted that there was no verification or material to establish any nexus between such acts and the returned candidate. 
• Accordingly, these omissions and defects were fatal to the petition, hence was liable to be rejected in limine.