1989 (8) TMI 374 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Allegations of corrupt practices under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
2. Non-compliance with Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
3. Interpretation and application of Sections 81, 83, and 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
4. Requirement of furnishing documents forming an integral part of the election petition.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Allegations of Corrupt Practices:
The appellant, a voter in the Mala constituency, challenged the election of the first respondent (the sitting Chief Minister) to the Kerala Legislative Assembly on grounds of corrupt practices. The allegations included:
- The second respondent withdrawing from the election and supporting the first respondent, claiming the first respondent's government would consider including the Kudumbi Samudayam community in the Scheduled Castes list.
- Government servants being asked to lead processions in support of the first respondent.
- The use of a video cassette titled "Malayude Purogathi" in the constituency, which featured speeches by government officers, allegedly at the instigation of the first respondent.

2. Non-Compliance with Section 81(3):
The first respondent contended that the election petition should be dismissed under Section 86(1) due to non-compliance with Section 81(3), as copies of the notice, photograph, and video cassette were not provided along with the election petition. The High Court upheld this contention, leading to the dismissal of the election petition.

3. Interpretation and Application of Sections 81, 83, and 86:
- Section 81(3): Mandates that every election petition must be accompanied by as many copies as there are respondents, and each copy must be attested to be a true copy.
- Section 83: Requires the election petition to contain a concise statement of material facts and full particulars of any corrupt practice, and to be signed and verified.
- Section 86(1): Compels the court to dismiss an election petition for non-compliance with Section 81 or Section 82 or Section 117.

The Supreme Court emphasized that both Section 81(3) and Section 86(1) are mandatory. Non-compliance with Section 81(3) necessitates dismissal of the petition.

4. Requirement of Furnishing Documents:
The Supreme Court analyzed whether the video cassette formed an integral part of the election petition:
- Integral Part: When a document is referenced in the petition and its contents are not pleaded, it becomes part of the petition by reference. Thus, a true copy of the petition must include such documents.
- Non-Integral Part: If the document's contents are fully pleaded in the petition, it does not form an integral part, and a copy need not be served.

In this case, the video cassette was deemed an integral part of the petition as it was referenced in paragraph 5(xi) without detailing its contents. The appellant's failure to provide a copy of the video cassette along with the petition meant the first respondent could not fully understand or respond to the allegations.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's judgment, dismissing the election petition due to non-compliance with Section 81(3), as the video cassette, forming an integral part of the petition, was not served on the first respondent. The appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs.