8 of 2021 was filed by the first respondent before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam under Sections 80, 81, 83, 84, 100, 101 and 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1951’), seeking a declaration that the election of the appellant was void and, in consequence, to declare him duly elected. The second ground urged by the appellant in his objections was in relation to Section 83 of the Act of 1951, which requires an election petition to contain a concise statement of material facts and full particulars of any corrupt practice, including the names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practice along with the date and place of commission of each such practice. By the impugned order dated 29.03.2023, a learned Judge of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam accepted the plea of the appellant to some extent but ultimately found that sufficient cause of action was made out for trial of the election petition to decide whether the election of the appellant on 06.04.2021 was null and void.
However, apropos the allegation that the appellant had used a religious symbol to further his prospects in the election and thereby committed a corrupt practice within the sweep Section 123(3) of the Act of 1951, the learned Judge found that the slips distributed by the appellant and his election agents depicted a picture of Lord Ayyappa and voiced an appeal to vote for the appellant.
He contended that the 4 election petition was not in compliance with Section 83 ( sic 81) of the Act of 1951, as sufficient number of copies of the petition were not filed at the time of its presentation.
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.’
In turn, Section 81(3), which is presently pertinent, falling in Chapter II of the Act of 1951, titled ‘Presentation of Election Petitions to High Court’, reads thus: – ‘ 81.
Before us, arguments were advanced only upon non-compliance with Section 81(3) of the Act of 1951, warranting invocation of Section 86(1) thereof, and not on the other issue regarding lack of material facts and particulars in the pleadings, as required by Section 83 of the Act of 1951. As regards the appellant’s primary ground, i.e., non-compliance with the requirements of Section 81(3) of the Act of 1951, warranting 7 peremptory rejection of the election petition, it may be noted that it was never the case of the appellant that the election petition was not accompanied by as many copies as there were respondents in the petition.
Copies of petitions etc., to be furnished.- (1) Every petition shall be accompanied by 3 authenticated copies of the application for the use of the court and twice the number of additional copies as there are respondents to be produced along with the application for service along with summons as per rules 210 and 211…….’ 13.
However, a precise averment was not made by the appellant even before us that the copy of the petition supplied to him was not attested by the first respondent under his own signature to be a true copy of the election petition.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/willful-disobedience-and-rectification-of-court-orders/
Interim order dated 18.01.2024 shall stand vacated.
Case Title: K. BABU Vs. M. SWARAJ (2024 INSC 103)
Case Number: C.A. No.-005975-005975 / 2023
