9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Proper presentation of the election petition u/s 81(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 2. Interpretation of the mandatory requirement for the petitioner's presence during the filing of the election petition. Summary: Issue 1: Proper presentation of the election petition u/s 81(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 1) This appeal, u/s 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, challenges the High Court of Karnataka's order dismissing the election petition for improper presentation u/s 81(1) of the Act. 2) The appellants contested the election results for Constituency No. 140, Bagepalli, alleging irregularities and illegalities, including an unauthorized recounting after the initial declaration of appellant No.1 as the winner. 3) The election petition was filed by the appellants' advocate, but the High Court Registry objected, stating the appellants were not present during the filing, leading to the petition's dismissal by the learned Single Judge. 4) The Supreme Court examined whether the election petition was properly presented u/s 81(1) and whether the High Court's dismissal was justified. Issue 2: Interpretation of the mandatory requirement for the petitioner's presence during the filing of the election petition5) Section 81(1) mandates that an election petition must be presented by the candidate or elector within 45 days from the date of election of the returned candidate. 6) The appellants argued that the presence of the petitioner is not mandatory if the petition is presented by an authorized advocate. The respondents contended that personal presentation by the petitioner is mandatory. 7) The Court emphasized that Section 81(1) has five specific requirements, including that the petition must be presented "by" the petitioner. Section 86(1) mandates dismissal of petitions not complying with Section 81. 8) Previous judgments, including K. Venkateswara Rao and Hukumdev Narain Yadav, affirmed that the Representation of the People Act is a self-contained code, requiring strict adherence to its provisions. 9) The Court highlighted that the Act's provisions must be interpreted strictly to ensure the genuineness of election petitions and prevent frivolous litigations. 10) The Court noted that the petitioner's personal presence ensures preliminary verification by the High Court, preventing vexatious petitions. 11) The Court distinguished the present case from Sheo Sadan Singh, where the petition was presented in the immediate presence of the petitioner, thus satisfying the requirement in substance. 12) The Court rejected the Rajasthan High Court's interpretation in Bhanwar Singh, which allowed presentation by an advocate without the petitioner's presence. 13) The Court concluded that the High Court correctly dismissed the election petition due to improper presentation, as it was filed only by an advocate without the petitioners' presence. 14) The civil appeal was dismissed, upholding the High Court's decision, with no order as to costs.
|
