Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Election Petition No. 2 of 1996

Advocates

R.N.Rawat
Mahesh Srivastava

Judges

Dr. M.K Sharma, J.

Acts

SECTION 80 REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT 1951
provisions of Representation of the People Act and the Election Rules
provisions of Section 81 or Section 82 or Section 117.7.
provisions of Section 81 or Section 82 or Section 117
provisions of Rules 6, 7 & 8 of the Election Rules
provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 81
Section 81(3) and Section 86(1)
provisions of Section 81(3)

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion (Dr. M.K. Sharma, J.)

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner filed an Election Petition under Section 80 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 challenging the election of respondent No. 1 to the House of the People from the Sadar Lok Sabha constituency, including allegations of corrupt practice.

Relevant electoral steps: the President issued a notification under Section 14 for constituting the 11th Lok Sabha; the Election Commission issued its public notice under Section 31. Nomination filing deadline was 3 April 1996, scrutiny on 4 April 1996, withdrawal on 6 April 1996, and polling on 27 April 1996. The Returning Officer declared respondent No. 1 elected after counting.

The petitioner (official candidate of Janata Dal (R)) lost and his advocate presented the Election Petition in the High Court Registry at 12:00 noon on 29 June 1996. The High Court Registry scrutinised the petition and found nine defects, including that the petition was not accompanied by as many attested copies as there were respondents, contrary to Section 81(3) of the Act.

The matter was listed before the Court on various dates. On 25 July 1996 counsel for the petitioner admitted that copies required by Section 81(3) had not been filed. The Court framed the narrow issue whether an Election Petition presented without the required attested copies (as many as there are respondents) is maintainable and whether non-compliance with Section 81(3) mandates dismissal at the threshold.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether an Election Petition presented without copies attested by the petitioner for as many respondents as there are (i.e., non-compliance with Section 81(3) of the Act) is maintainable.
If Section 81(3) is not complied with, whether the Election Petition must be dismissed in limine under Section 86(1) of the Act.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

The petitioner argued that Section 81(3) should be read together with Rules 6, 7 and 8 of the Delhi High Court Election Rules and, when so read, the requirement to file copies for respondents is directory (not mandatory).
Counsel submitted that it is the Registry's obligation to point out defects and, once pointed out, the petitioner should be allowed to file the requisite copies; dismissal would be a pedantic outcome.
To support this approach, the petitioner relied on the Supreme Court decisions in Raj Narain v. Indira Nehru Gandhi ((1972) 3 SCC 850) and F.A. Sapa v. Signora ((1991) 3 SCC 375), which emphasise liberal allowance of amendments or amplification in pleadings/verification in election matters.

The opinion does not provide specific arguments advanced by the respondents in the record excerpt provided.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Raj Narain v. Indira Nehru Gandhi, (1972) 3 SCC 850	Principle that courts should be liberal in allowing amendments in election pleadings; election petitions should not be dismissed in limine for lack of full particulars of corrupt practices.	The Court held this decision distinguishable: it relates to amendment of pleadings under Section 83(1), not to the specific mandatory filing requirement in Section 81(3). The Court did not apply this precedent to excuse non-compliance with Section 81(3).
F.A. Sapa v. Signora, (1991) 3 SCC 375	Principles regarding amendment of verification and affidavit and liberal allowance of amendment/amplification under Section 83 and Section 86(5).	The Court found this precedent distinguishable as it concerns amendment of verification/affidavit and particulars of corrupt practice, not non-filing of attested copies under Section 81(3); it was not applied to avoid dismissal.
U.S. Shashidharan v. K. Karunakaran, (1989) 4 SCC 482 : AIR 1990 SC 924	Holds that Section 86(1) mandates dismissal of an election petition where there is non-compliance with Section 81(3); both Section 81(3) and Section 86(1) are mandatory.	The Court treated this decision as directly on point and followed it: concluded that Section 81(3) is mandatory and non-compliance requires dismissal of the election petition under Section 86(1).

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court began by identifying the statutory and rule provisions relevant to presentation and scrutiny of election petitions: Section 80 (right to challenge an election), Section 81 (presentation requirements, including subsection (3) requiring attested copies for respondents), Section 83 (contents and verification), Section 86 (consequence of non-compliance) of the Representation of the People Act, and Rules 5–8 of the Delhi High Court Election Rules framed under Chapter II of the Act.

The Registry's scrutiny revealed nine defects; the petitioner admitted specifically to non-compliance with Section 81(3) (no attested copies filed for respondents). The narrow legal question was whether this non-compliance was fatal to maintainability.

The petitioner argued Section 81(3) was directory when read with Rules 6–8, relying on cases that support liberal amendment and amplification (Raj Narain and F.A. Sapa). The Court examined those authorities and concluded they concerned amendment of pleadings, verification and particulars under Section 83/Section 86(5) and therefore were distinguishable from the present statutory filing requirement in Section 81(3).

The Court reasoned that Section 81 unambiguously mandates filing of as many attested copies as there are respondents at the time of presentation. Section 86(1) expressly requires dismissal where there is non-compliance with Section 81. The Election Rules (including Rule 5–8) cannot override or negate statutory mandates; they must be read harmoniously with the Act. Having considered precedent, the Court relied on U.S. Shashidharan v. K. Karunakaran as directly on point, which treated Section 81(3) and Section 86(1) as mandatory and required dismissal for non-compliance.

Applying that ratio and the statutory scheme, the Court concluded the filing requirement in Section 81(3) is mandatory and non-compliance entails dismissal in limine under Section 86(1).

Holding and Implications

Holding: The Court dismissed the Election Petition for non-compliance with Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Petition dismissed.

Immediate Consequences for the Parties

The Election Petition was dismissed in limine because it was not accompanied, at presentation, by attested copies for as many respondents as there are, as required by Section 81(3).
No order was made in respect of payment of costs.
The security deposited by the petitioner under Section 117 of the Act was ordered to be returned to the petitioner.

Broader Implications

The Court followed existing Supreme Court precedent (U.S. Shashidharan) in treating the filing requirement of Section 81(3) as mandatory. The opinion does not purport to establish a new precedent beyond applying that settled principle; it enforces statutory mandatory filing requirements and the statutory consequence of dismissal under Section 86(1).

Source: Opinion of Dr. M.K. Sharma, J., as provided. This summary is strictly based on the material contained in the provided opinion and does not add or infer facts or legal propositions beyond that text.

Show full summary ...

K.K. Shukla v. Vijay Kumar Goel

Dr. M.K Sharma, J.— This Election Petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 80 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) challenging the election of respondent No. 1 to the House of the People from the Sadar Lok Sabha constituency on various grounds including that of the allegations of corrupt practice.

2. Before I advert to the issue arising for my consideration in the present petition in respect of which submission has been made by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner it would be necessary to delineate the facts giving rise to the present petition.

3. The President of India issued a notification under Section 14 of the Act to hold General Elections for the purpose of constituting the 11th Lok Sabha. Pursuant to the aforesaid notification issued by the President of India the Election Commission issued public notice under Section 31 of the Act for holding elections for the aforesaid purpose. Under the notification issued by the Election Commission of India the last date for filing the nomination papers was 3rd April, 1996. 4th April, 1996 was scheduled for scrutiny of nomination papers and 6th April, 1996 was slated for withdrawing the candidature from the election fray. 27th April, 1996 was fixed for holding the election for the purpose of electing a Member to the House of People from the Sadar Lok Sabha Constituency.

4. The petitioner was an official candidate of Janata Dal (R) and he filed his nomination papers for contesting the election from the Sadar Lok Sabha Constituency. The respondent No. 1 was a candidate from the same constituency and contested the election as an official candidate of Bhartiya Janata Party. Respondent No. 18 also contested the election as an official candidate of the Indian National Congress. The polling for the election to the Sadar Lok Sabha Constituency took place on 27.4.1996 as scheduled. The Returning Officer, after counting of the valid Ballot papers declared the respondent No. 1 elected as having obtained the majority of valid votes. The petitioner having lost in the said election has now preferred the present Election Petition.

5. The Election Petition was presented by the Advocate for the petitioner in the Registry of the High Court at 12.00 Noon on 29.6.1996

6. The procedure for presentation of an Election Petition to High Court is laid down in Chapter II of the Act. The relevant provisions of the said Act having a bearing on the present petition are extracted below:

“80. Election Petitions.—No election shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with the provisions of this Part.

81. Presentation of Petitions.—(1)

************

(3) Every election petition shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned in the petition and every such copy shall be attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition.

83. Contents of petition.—(1) ***

************

(2) Any schedule or annexure to the petition shall also be signed by the petitioner and verified in the same manner as the petition.

86. Trial of election petitions.—(1) The High Court shall dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of Section 81 or Section 82 or Section 117.”

7. The Delhi High Court being so empowered, framed a set of Rules called Election Rules vide Notification No. 21 dated 28.4.1967 and published in Delhi Gazette, Part II, Section 18 dated 18.5.1967 The relevant provisions having bearing on the present petition are extracted below:

Rule 5. The election petition alongwith the necessary copies may be presented at any time during the Court Hours. Immediately after it is presented, the date of presentation shall be endorsed thereon, and the petition shall be entered in the special register maintained for the registration of election petitions.

Rule 6. After the petition is presented, the party or Advocate shall be asked to attend the office on the third day from the date of the presentation to remove objections, if any. An undertaking in writing will be obtained from the party or Advocate to remain present in the office on the date appointed. The petitioner shall furnish his address preferably in Delhi or Simla, as the case may be, where any communication may be addressed to or served on him.

Rule 7. The office shall examine the petition with a view to see whether it is in conformity with the requirements of law and the rules, applicable to the same, and if it is not in conformity with law and the rules, raise objections which could be removed by the party or the Advocate concerned. These objections should be brought to the notice of the party or the Advocate on the date fixed for attendance under Rule 6 and such objections shall be removed, subject to the orders of the Court, if any, within two days thereafter.

Rule 8. Immediately after the time fixed for the removal of objections has expired, the petition shall be placed before the Court for such order, as may be required to be passed under Section 86 of the Act. If the petition is not dismissed under Section 86(1) of the Act, a summons on direction of the Court shall be issued to the respondents to appear before the High Court on a fixed date and answer the claim or claims made in the petition. Such date shall not be earlier than three weeks from the date of the issue of the summons. The summons shall be for written statement settlement of issues.”

8. After presentation of the aforesaid Election Petition in this Court the Registry of the High Court scrutinised the Election Petition in accordance with the provisions of the election rules framed by the High Court. In the Course of the aforesaid scrutiny the Registry found 9 defects and raised objections in respect of the said 9 defects including that of the Election Petition not being accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned in the petition, and attested by the petitioner under his own signatures to be true copy of the petition. With the aforesaid objections the Election Petition was put up for necessary orders before the Court on 24.7.1996 However, none represented the petitioner on that date. The case was adjourned and was listed on 25.7.1996 Since in all 9 defects were pointed out including that of the Election Petition not being accompanied by as many copies as there are respondents, this Court on 25.7.1996 noticed the relevant provisions of the Act and Election Rules framed by the High Court and when this Court asked the Counsel for the petitioner as to whether the provisions of Section 81(3) of the Act were complied with or not the Counsel for the petitioner fairly stated that he had not filed copies of the petition at the time of presentation of the petition in the Registry. It was further recorded in the said order passed by this Court on 25.7.1996 that in view of the aforesaid non-compliance of the provisions of Section 81(3) at the time of presentation of the Election Petition the issue that arises for consideration of the Court is as to whether the Election Petition was properly presented in accordance with the provisions of Representation of the People Act and the Election Rules framed by the High Court and if not what would be the effect of the non-compliance on election petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner however, sought for an adjournment to look into and examine the aforesaid issue and thereafter to make his submissions and accordingly, the case stood adjourned to 13.8.1996 when the matter was again adjourned at the request of Counsel for the petitioner and finally the Counsel for the petitioner was heard on the aforesaid issue on 30.8.1996

9. The subject of controversy at the present stage lies in a very narrow compass namely—as to whether an Election Petition presented without copies for as many respondents as there are, is maintainable or not? The further issue is—if there is non-compliance of the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 81 whether the Election Petition is maintainable and that the election poetition could be dismissed for such non-compliance at the very threshold itself?

10. It is an admitted fact that the Election Petition when presented in the Registry of this Court was not accompanied by as many copies as there are respondents and attested by the petitioner under his own signatures to be true copy of the petition. It is the admitted position on behalf of the petitioner that till date no such copies of the Election Petition have been filed in the Registry with attestation by the petitioner under his own signatures.

11. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted before me that so far as the provisions of Section 81(3) are concerned the same should be read alongwith the provisions of rules 6, 7 & 8 of the election rules framed by the High Court, and so read it is apparent that the aforesaid provision of Election Petition to be accompanied by as many copies there of as there are respondents mentioned in the petition is directory in nature and that it is the obligation of the Registry to point out the defects to the petitioner in presentation of the election petition and when so done such copies of the election petition could be filed by the election petitioner. In support of his submission the learned Counsel relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Raj Narain v. Indira Nehru Gandhi; (1972) 3 SCC 850, and in F.A Sapa v. Signora, (1991) 3 SCC 375. The learned Counsel further submitted that the substantive election petition is already before the Court and if the petition is not in conformity the petitioner should be given an opportunity to make good the deficiency and that the provisions of Section 81(3) should not be read in a pedantic manner so as to dismiss an election petition.

12. I have given by utmost consideration to the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and have also considered the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel. The case of Raj Narain (Supra.) relates to amendment of pleadings wherein it was held by the Supreme Court that the Court should be ordinarily liberal in allowing amendment of pleadings and that an election petition is not liable to be dismissed in limine because full particulars of corrupt practices alleged were not set out. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in the said case to the effect that if an objection was taken and the Tribunal was of the view that full particulars have not been set out the petitioner has to be given an opportunity to amend or amplify the particulars.

13. The said decision given by the Supreme Court relates to an issue in respect of the amendment of pleadings in an election petition and deal with the interpretation of Section 83(1) of the Act. The said case does not deal with the issue of an election petition not accompanied by attested copies for as many respondents as there are which is laid down in Section 81(3) of the Act. The aforesaid decision is, therefore, clearly distinguishable and is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

14. The other decision of the Supreme Court in F.A Sapa (Supra) relied upon by the Counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case in view of the fact that the same relates to the amendment of verification and the affidavit accompanying the petition which are to be incorporated as laid down in Section 83 of the Act. The said case also relates to amendment or amplification of particulars of corrupt practice under Section 86(5) of the Act wherein it was held by the Supreme Court that the High Court should be liberal in allowing amendment/amplification. The said case also is, therefore, clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case and is in no way relevant for the purpose of deciding the issue arising for my consideration in the present petition.

15. Section 81 of the Act gives a mandate that at the time of presentation of the election petition each election petition shall be accompanied with as many copies as there are respondents mentioned in the petition. In other words, the election petitioner at the time of presenting the election petition has also to file copies of the election petition as presented for all the respondents and each of the aforesaid copies is to be attested by the petitioner under his own signatures to be a true copy of the election petition. Section 86 of the Act, on the other hand, clearly mandates that if there be any non-compliance of the provisions of Section 81 or Section 82 or Section 117 the High Court shall dismiss an election petition. The Election Rules framed by the High Court also lay down in Rule 5 that an election petition alongwith necessary copies may be presented at any time during the Court hours and that immediately after it is presented the date of presentation shall be endorsed thereon and the petition shall be entered in the Special Register maintained for the registration of the election petitions. After an election petition is so presented the Registry shall scrutinise the election petition with a view to see whether it is in conformity with the requirements of law and the Rules applicable to the same and if it is found that the same is not in conformity with the law and the Rules, raise objections which could be removed by the parties or the Advocate concerned. It is settled law that the provisions of the Rules cannot override or negate the provisions of the Act enacted by the Legislature. Therefore, the provisions of the Rules are to be read harmoniously with that of the provisions of the Act. Rule 5 of the Election Rules clearly stipulates that an election petition alongwith the necessary copies of the election petition for the respondents are to be presented during the Court hours. When the provisions of the Act and the Rules are so read and understood, there could be no other interpretation but to hold that the provisions of section 81 are mandatory in nature and non-compliance of the same entails dismissal of the election petition in limine by the High Court.

16. In U.S Shashidharan v. K. Karunakaran, (1989) 4 SCC 482 : AIR 1990 SC 924; the Supreme Court has held that Section 86(1) is a mandate on the Court to dismiss an election petition if there be a non-compliance of provisions of Section 81(3) of the Act. It is further held by the Supreme Court that both Section 81(3) and Section 86(1) are mandatory in nature and if there be any non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 81(3) the Court is bound to dismiss the election petition. The aforesaid decision rendered by the Supreme Court is a direct case on the issue that arises for my consideration and following the ratio of the aforesaid decision I hold that the provisions of Section 81(3) of the Act are mandatory and non-compliance of the same would entail dismissal of the election petition by the High Court as provided for under Section 86(1) of the Act.

17. Since in the present case the petitioner did not file copies of the petition at the time of presentation of the election petition and the election petition admittedly having not been accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are respondents with attestation of the petitioner under his own signatures, the present writ petition is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed. Since the election petition is dismissed in limine no order is made in respect of payment of costs. The security deposited by the petitioner in terms of Section 117 of the Act shall be returned to the election petitioner.

Petition dismissed.

K.K. Shukla v. Vijay Kumar Goel

Structured Summary of the Opinion (Dr. M.K. Sharma, J.)

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Immediate Consequences for the Parties

Broader Implications

K.K. Shukla v. Vijay Kumar Goel

Comments