- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Murarka Radheyshyam Ramkumar v. Roop Singh Rathore
Factual and Procedural Background
These petitions arise under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the decisions of the Election Tribunal Jhunjhunu in election petitions related to the House of the People election from the Jhunjhunu constituency. Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar, the successful candidate, objected to the Tribunal's refusal to accept certain objections and to dismiss two election petitions against him. The objections pertained to procedural defects in the election petitions, including the improper joinder of a party, attestation of copies, verification formalities, and the authenticity of copies supplied.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Election Tribunal erred in not dismissing the election petition for improper joinder of a respondent who was not a necessary party under Section 82 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
- Whether the copy of the election petition supplied to Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar was invalid for lack of proper attestation.
- Whether defects in verification and affidavit compliance under Section 83 of the Act warranted dismissal of the election petitions under Section 90(3).
- Whether minor discrepancies in the copies of the election petition, such as omitted references in verification endorsements and missing signatures, rendered the copies untrue and justified dismissal.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| K. Kamaraja Nadar v. Kunju Thever | Non-joinder of necessary parties in election petitions | Distinguished as not applicable since the issue was impleading a party who was not necessary, not failing to join a necessary party. |
| Chaturbhuj v. Election Tribunal, Kanpur | Non-joinder of necessary parties in election petitions | Distinguished for the same reason as above; the case involved non-joinder, whereas the present case involved improper joinder. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court analyzed each objection raised against the election petitions in light of the relevant statutory provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Regarding the joinder of an unnecessary party, the Court noted that Section 82 mandates the joinder of necessary parties but does not prohibit the addition of others; such unnecessary parties may be struck off without invalidating the petition. On attestation of the copies, the Tribunal's finding that every page was attested as a true copy was unchallenged and thus accepted. Defects in verification and affidavit under Section 83 were held not to justify dismissal under Section 90(3), as that section does not prescribe dismissal for such defects. Minor technical discrepancies in the copies, such as omitted paragraph references and absent signatures, were deemed hypertechnical and not sufficient to render the copies untrue or justify dismissal. The Court emphasized substantial compliance with Section 81(3) and rejected the argument that such defects warranted dismissal, distinguishing between defects in originals and copies and the applicable statutory penalties.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED
The Court dismissed the petitions, holding that none of the alleged defects warranted dismissal under the relevant provisions of the Representation of the People Act. The decision affirms that minor procedural irregularities, especially in copies or involving unnecessary parties, do not invalidate election petitions or justify their dismissal. The ruling directly affects the parties by upholding the validity of the election petitions before the Tribunal, but it does not establish any new legal precedent beyond the application of existing statutory provisions.
Ranawat, C.J:— These are two petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and arise out of the election petitions which are being tried by the Election Tribunal Jhunjhunu. Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar, the successful candidate at the election to the House of the People from the Jhunjhunu constituency raised certain objections before the Tribunal which were disallowed on August 13, 1962. He has therefore come to this court and it is contended on his behalf that the Tribunal was in error in not accepting the following objections and in not dismissing the two election petitions:—
(1) In election petition No. 269 of 1962 the petitioner joined Ballu s/o Salla as a respondent when he was not a necessary party under sec. 82 of the Representation of the People Act 1951, (hereinafter in this judgment referred to as the Act).
(2) The copy of the election petition supplied to Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar was not duly attested to be a true copy.
(3) The verification on the election petition was not in accordance with the provisions of sec. 83 of the Act and the affidavit did not purport to be attested in accordance with the law.
(4) The copies filed with the election petition and the one that was furnished to Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar were not true copies of the election petition in as much as (i) paragraphs 14(e) and (g)(ii) were not mentioned in the endorsement of verification., and (ii) the signature of petitioner Ridmalsingh was not mentioned below the verification endorsement.
2. It is strenuously urged by the learned counsel that the Election Tribunal should have dismissed the election petitions for these defects under sec. 90(3) of the Act.
3. It is contended that the defects mentioned above are common to both the election petitions except that in election petition No. 269 a further point is taken that Shri Ballu has been added as a party contrary to the provision of sec. 82, as mentioned earlier.
4. We have carefully considered the points raised by the learned counsel. On point No. (1) the counsel for the petitioner has referred to the observations in K. Kamaraja Nadar v. Kunju Thever(1) and Chaturbhuj v. Election Tribunal, Kanpur(2). Both these cases relate to non-joinder of a necessary party and no assistance can be obtained from them in the present case which does not suffer with a defect of non-joinder but instead a party who is not a necessary party has been impleaded. Sec. 82 of the Act which is relevant in this connection runs as follows:—
A petitioner shall join as respondent to his petition:—
(a) where the petitioner, in addition to claiming a declaration that the election of all or any of the returned candidates is void, claims a further declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected, all the contesting candidates other than the petitioner, and where no such further declaration is claimed, all the returned candidates: and
(b) any other candidate against whom allegations of any corrupt practice are made in the petition.
5. It is not disputed that all the necessary persons have been impleaded as respondents in the election petition. In addition one Ballu has been impleaded who is not a necessary party. In these circumstances., it cannot be said that sec. 82 has not been complied with. If a person who is not a necessary party is impleaded, he can be struck off without there being any question of a breach of the provisions of sec. 82 of the Act.
6. As regards the point No. (2), we find that the learned Election Tribunal has observed that “every page of the copy has been attested as true copy”. The counsel for the petitioner has not been able to assert that these observations of the Election Tribunal are incorrect and so this objection is also of no consequence.
7. As regards point No. (3), it may be pointed out that a defect in the verification of the election petition or in the affidavit appended to the petition, falls within the purview of sec. 83 of the Act, and an election petition cannot be dismissed for any such defect under sec. 90(3).
8. The last point does not appear to have been dealt with in the impugned order of the Election Tribunal. The defects pointed out are that in the copy of the election petition which was furnished to Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar, the reference to the verification of paragraphs 14(c) and (g)(ii) was left out in the endorsement of verification and the signature of petitioner Ridmalsingh was not mentioned in that verification. Assuming that these defects are there in the copy, the question is whether they can be said to fall within the purview of sec. 81 of the Act.
9. Sec. 81(3) of the Act lays down that “every election petition shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned in the petition and one more copy for the use of the Election Commission, and every such copy shall be attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition.” The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even though the copy may have been attested as a true copy, it is not a copy in substance for it does not agree with the original in the particulars referred to in the preceding paragraph. It is, however, admitted before us that there are no such defects in the original election petitions. The defects have therefore crept in making the copies. Thus it seems that in preparing the copies the reference to paragraphs 14(e) and (g)(ii) has been left out in the endorsement of the verification. Similarly, the copyst, it seems, forgot to make a mention of the signature under the endorsement of the verification. In our opinion, it cannot be said that the copies are not true copies in substance simply because of these minor and technical defects. It is conceivable that spelling mistakes may some times occur in preparing copies, or a word here and a word there-may be left out by inadvertence, but still, in substance, the copies may be regarded as true copies for all practical purposes. Besides, the provisions for the verification of an election petition and the filing of an affidavit are contained in sec. 83 which do not find a mention in sec. 90(3) of the Act. An election petition can only be dismissed if it does not comply with the provisions of sec. 81 or 82. If the election petition itself contains defects of the nature pointed out above in its copies, it cannot be dismissed under sec. 90(3), for the defects would relate to sec. 83, the contravention of which cannot to be visited with the penalty of dismissal of the election petition. There is all the more good reason why similar defects in a true copy of the election petition should not entail its dismissal. In our opinion, there is a substantial compliance with the provisions of sec. 81(3) in this case and the defects pointed out are hypertechnical and would not bring the case within the purview of sec. 90(3) of the Act.
10. For the foregoing reasons, there is no force in any of the points urged in these two writ petitions and they are dismissed summarily.
Alert