Election Petition filed by the first respondent in the Madras High Court regarding the validity of the election in the Aravakurichi Assembly Constituency. The appellant, who is the fifth respondent in the Election Petition, was declared elected. The first ground of challenge in the petition is the improper acceptance of nomination papers of the appellant and the sixth respondent. The second ground of challenge is that the appellant engaged in corrupt practices.

Bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal was hearing an appeal. The appeal was filed against the order of the Madras High Court, which had set aside the application filed by the appellant. The appellant had sought the rejection of an Election Petition challenging its election in the Constituent Assembly election.

The appellant filed an application stating that the Election Petition does not disclose any material particulars or facts about the allegation of corrupt practice. They argued that the allegations made in the petition were vague and should be struck out. The High Court rejected the application and directed the first respondent to file all relevant documents, such as emails, photographs, and video footage, within 15 days.

The appellant challenged the High Court's judgment and order, arguing that the Election Petition should be rejected as it does not disclose the cause of action. They also contended that the direction to file additional documents was illegal.

The appellant's counsel argued that the Election Petition does not provide material facts and particulars regarding the alleged corrupt practices, as required by Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. They further pointed out that certain paragraphs in the petition were irrelevant and should be struck out. They relied on previous court decisions to support their arguments.

The first respondent's counsel countered that material facts supporting the allegations of corrupt practice were already pleaded in the Election Petition. They argued that the High Court correctly applied the law and that the first respondent could provide additional particulars later if needed.

The court observed that the Election Petition lacked necessary material facts and details to establish a cause of action for the alleged corrupt practices. They stated that the failure to plead material facts concerning corrupt practices is fatal to the election petition. The court found that the allegations made in the petition were vague and general in nature, and the necessary facts were not pleaded. They also noted that the petition contained irrelevant paragraphs that could be struck out.

In conclusion, the court agreed with the appellant's argument that the Election Petition did not disclose a cause of action for corrupt practices and that certain paragraphs should be struck out. They found that the necessary material facts were missing and that the allegations were vague.