- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Gore Lal Shakya v. Maharaj Singh Yadav And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The dispute arises from the 1989 general election to the 306 Bardana (U.P.) Assembly Constituency. The appellant, an Indian National Congress candidate, lost to the first respondent, a Janata Dal candidate. Pursuant to Sections 80-A and 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the appellant filed an election petition before the Allahabad High Court seeking (i) setting aside the first respondent’s election and (ii) a declaration that the appellant be declared elected.
The first respondent moved an application contending that the petition was fatally defective under Section 82(a) because the tenth respondent (another contesting candidate) was wrongly described as “Sanjay Kumar” instead of “Sanjiv Kumar.” Accepting this plea, the High Court dismissed the election petition under Section 86(1) on 10 August 1990. The present appeal under Section 116-A challenges that dismissal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether an incorrect spelling of a contesting candidate’s name in the array of parties constitutes non-compliance with Section 82(a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, warranting dismissal of the election petition under Section 86(1).
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The alleged error is merely a minor typographical mistake confined to the array of parties; elsewhere in the petition the name “Sanjiv Kumar” is correctly stated.
- Service of notice was in fact effected on Respondent 10, demonstrating substantial compliance with Sections 81 and 82.
- Section 86(1) should not be invoked for insignificant clerical errors; the statutory scheme tolerates trivial deviations.
- The appellant filed an amendment application before the High Court clarifying the correct spelling, further evidencing good faith and absence of prejudice.
Respondent 1's Arguments
- Strict compliance with Section 82(a) is mandatory; mis-description of a necessary party is a jurisdictional defect that renders the petition liable to dismissal under Section 86(1).
- Reliance on Rajendra Singh v. Usha Rani to contend that the election law mandates exactitude in pleadings.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Rajendra Singh v. Usha Rani, (1984) 3 SCC 339 | Election petitions must comply strictly with statutory requirements, but “typographical or insignificant omissions” are tolerated. | The Supreme Court invoked the qualifying observation in the case to hold that the instant misspelling was an “insignificant omission,” thereby negating the High Court’s strict view. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court noted that:
- The name “Sanjiv Kumar” appears correctly in multiple parts of the election petition; the only deviation is a single misspelling in the party array.
- The High Court itself recorded that notice had been served on Respondent 10, confirming that the candidate was both identified and notified.
- An amendment application, filed before the High Court on 19-July-1990, expressly clarified the correct name; no counter-affidavit disputing this was produced.
- Even Respondent 1’s own application contained the same typographical error, underscoring its trivial nature.
- Applying the dictum in Rajendra Singh, the Court held that the error was “insignificant” and did not defeat the statutory purpose of Section 82.
Consequently, the High Court had “made a mountain out of a mole hill.” The Supreme Court concluded that the dismissal under Section 86(1) was unsustainable.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Allowed. The Supreme Court set aside the Allahabad High Court’s order and dismissed Respondent 1’s application under Section 86 of the Act. Costs of Rs 500 were awarded against Respondent 1.
Implications: The election petition is revived and will proceed on merits. The decision reaffirms that insignificant typographical errors in naming a respondent do not mandate dismissal under Section 86(1); however, it sets no new broader precedent beyond clarifying the tolerance for trivial clerical mistakes under election law.
Order
1. This appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short ‘the Act’) is against the order dated 10-8-1990 passed by the High Court of Allahabad in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. Nil of 1990 in Election Petition No. 17 of 1990.
2. The brief facts which have given rise to this appeal are thus.
3. The general election in respect of 306 Bardana U.P Assembly Constituency was held in 1989. The appellant herein was a candidate of the Indian National Congress opposed by the first respondent who was a candidate from Janata Dal. There were in all 11 contesting candidates including the appellant. Respondent 1 was declared elected. The election of the first respondent was challenged by the appellant under Sections 80-A and 81 of the Act on various grounds, praying to set aside the election of Respondent 1 and also to declare that he be declared elected from that constituency. All the contesting candidates were made parties to that petition. The first respondent filed an application praying inter alia for dismissal of the election petition on account of non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 82 of the Act and the rules framed thereunder. The main ground taken in that application in paragraph 12 reads as follows:
“That the petition is also liable to be thrown out on the ground that Respondent 10 who has been shown as Sanjay Kumar, which is wrong. In fact, the real and correct name of Respondent 10 is Sanjive Kumar and as such there is no proper service on account of wrong description of the name of Respondent 10.”
4. The High Court went into that question and passed the following order:
“The petition being liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joining of Shri Sanjiv Kumar, a contesting candidate as a respondent there is no need to go into the other objection as raised by Respondent 1 in the Miscellaneous Application dated 16-4-1990 nor the remaining objection has been urged before me by Shri Tripathi. Therefore, I do not consider it necessary to dilate upon that.
For the reasons, the application is partly allowed on one of the contentions as contained in paragraph 12 of the application and the petition is dismissed under sub-section (1) of Section 86 for non-compliance with the provisions of clause (a) of Section 82 of the Act, 1951 ….”
5. Now this order is impugned before us. The only question that arises for our consideration in the present appeal is whether the High Court was correct and justified in dismissing the election petition for the alleged non-compliance of the provisions of clause (a) of Section 82 of the Act in that the name of Respondent 10 has not been correctly shown. The learned counsel for the appellant, Ms Sandhya Goswamy, contended that there was no mistake in mentioning the name of Respondent 10 and that in fact the reading of entire election petition discloses that the name of the 10th respondent has been correctly mentioned and that a small typographical mistake committed in the spelling of the name only in the portion of the array of parties is very insignificant and that typographical mistake does not warrant invocation of Section 81. It was brought to our notice that the order of the High Court made on 14-3-1990 which reads:
“Notice sent by post has been served on Respondents 3 and 10 ….”
clearly indicates that Section 82 has been materially complied with.
6. It is seen from the appeal records that the appellant filed an application dated 19-7-1990 seeking an amendment or correction of the alias name of the 10th respondent as Sanjiv Kumar. In that application the following averments are made:
In para 3 it is averred thus:
“In the petition correct spelling of the name of Respondent 10 is written Sanjiv Kumar ….”
In paragraph 5 of the said petition it is stated:
“That in the body of the petition at one place name of Respondent 10 is given as Sanjiv Kumar in Hindi vide Annexure 4-A page 148 and at the other place his name is given as Sanjiv Kumar in English vide page No. 5 of the petition and his alias name is given on page No. 2 as Sanjai Kumar with his correct postal address.”
Again in paragraph 7 of the said petition it is stated:
“That on page No. 2 of the petition name of Respondent 10 ought to have been typed by the spelling of Sanjiv Kumar but in dictation typist has typed his alias name with the spelling of Sanjai Kumar and this mistake occurred due to pronunciation of his name. Mistake is clerical and in typing.”
7. Nothing has been brought to our notice as to whether any counter-affidavit has been filed before the High Court refuting the statement made in the application filed by the appellant stating that the name of 10th respondent is correctly mentioned in the body of the petition Sanjiv Kumar; but by typographical mistake the spelling of the name of Sanjiv Kumar has been mentioned as Sanjai Kumar. The High Court has made much about nothing and also made a mountain out of a mole hill. It is very surprising that the first respondent himself has committed the same typographical mistake in his application taken up before the High Court seeking dismissal of the election petition mentioning the name of “Sanjiv Kumar” at one place as “Sanjai Kumar” and when counsel for the respondent was confronted with this mistake in his application, he states that it is a typographical mistake. In our considered opinion nothing can adversely be inferred against the appellant since it is now demonstrably shown that the mistake is committed only in the array of parties that too by a typographical error.
8. Learned counsel for Respondent 1 in support of his submission that the averments in the election petition should be in strict compliance of Section 86(1) of the Act, relied upon the decision in Rajendra Singh v. Usha Rani (1984) 3 SCC 339, (1984) 3 SCR 22. But in the same decision the learned Judges have observed:
“The mandate contained in Section 81(3) enjoins that there should be no difference of any kind whatsoever barring some typographical or insignificant omissions between the petitions filed and the copy served on the respondent.”
9. In the present case we are of the firm view that the mentioning of the name of the 10th respondent as “Sanjai Kumar” in the array of parties is nothing but only a typographical error which is insignificant. Under these circumstances we are unable to agree with the High Court that this typographical error has invalidated the election petition under Section 86(1) of the Act.
10. For the above reasons we allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment of the High Court and dismissing the application filed under Section 86 of the Act by Respondent 1 with costs. Cost is quantified at Rs 500.
Alert