1996 (3) TMI 551 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the copy of the election petition accompanied by a supporting affidavit served on the respondents without attestation by a notary or other prescribed authority can be considered a "true and correct copy" as required under Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Commonality of the Question in Appeals:
The Supreme Court considered multiple appeals together as they involved a common question regarding the validity of election petitions where the supporting affidavits served on respondents lacked notary verification.

2. Case Summaries:
- C.A. No. 6359 of 1994: The appellant's nomination was rejected on the ground that they did not belong to the Scheduled Caste. The election petition was dismissed by the High Court due to the lack of notary verification on the affidavit.
- C.A. No. 8080 of 1994: Similar to the first case, the appellant's election petition was dismissed because the affidavit served on the respondent lacked notary verification.
- C.A. No. 6635 of 1995: The appellant's election petition was dismissed on the same ground of missing notary verification on the affidavit.
- Civil Appeal No. 200 of 1993: The election petition was dismissed as the affidavit served did not contain verification by a notary or oath commissioner.

3. Legal Question:
The core issue was whether a copy of an election petition accompanied by a supporting affidavit, without the attestation part verified by a notary, can be considered a "true and correct copy" as envisaged in Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

4. Definition and Interpretation of "True Copy":
The Court referred to various legal dictionaries and precedents to define "true copy," concluding that it means a copy that is so true that nobody can misunderstand it, even if it is not an absolutely exact copy. The affidavit's attestation by the prescribed authority is an integral part of the election petition.

5. Precedents and Principles:
The Court cited Mithilesh Kumar Pande v. Baidyanath Yadav and Ors., establishing principles that:
- Clerical or typographical mistakes in the copy are inconsequential.
- A true copy must be substantially the same as the original.
- Important omissions or discrepancies that cause prejudice are not permissible.
- The concept of substantial compliance cannot include serious or vital mistakes.
- Section 81(3) is to protect the electoral process, and a liberal interpretation is not warranted.

6. Importance of Attestation:
The Court emphasized that the attestation of the affidavit by a notary or prescribed authority is vital as it assures that the election petitioner has verified the correctness of the allegations. The omission of such attestation in the copy supplied to the respondent is not a curable irregularity and misleads the respondent.

7. Case-specific Observations:
- In Mrs. Shipra's case (C.A. No. 6359 of 1994), the High Court's dismissal of the election petition was upheld, noting that the election petition rested on allegations of corrupt practices, and the defect in the affidavit was material.
- In other appeals, the Court found no other grounds except allegations of corrupt practices, and the dismissals were upheld.

8. Conclusion and Judgment:
The Supreme Court concluded that the omission of notary verification on the affidavit served to the respondents was a material defect. The appeals were dismissed as the election petitions did not comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 81(3) of the Act, and the defects were not curable.

Separate Judgments:
- S.P. Bharucha, J.: Agreed with the majority judgment, emphasizing that the lack of notary verification misled the respondents in a material particular.
- K.S. Paripoornan, J.: Agreed with the majority judgment, adding that Sections 81, 83, and 86 of the Act must be read together, and the absence of notary attestation on the affidavit renders the copy non-compliant with Section 81(3).

Final Decision:
The appeals were dismissed without costs, affirming the High Courts' decisions to dismiss the election petitions due to the lack of notary verification on the affidavits.