9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with Section 81(3) of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951. 2. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 90(3) of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951. 3. Substantial compliance versus literal compliance with statutory requirements. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Compliance with Section 81(3) of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951 The primary issue in this appeal was whether the Election Petition complied with Section 81(3) of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951. Section 81(3) mandates that every election petition be accompanied by as many copies as there are respondents and one additional copy for the Election Commission, with each copy attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition. The Election Petition in question was accompanied by the requisite number of copies, which were carbon copies of the type-script and bore the original signatures of the petitioner. However, the petitioner did not insert the words "true copy" before or above his signatures. The High Court held that this omission rendered the petition non-compliant with Section 81(3) and directed its dismissal. The Supreme Court examined whether the omission to add the words "true copy" constituted a non-compliance with Section 81(3) that would necessitate the dismissal of the petition under Section 90(3). The Court noted that the copies were exact replicas of the original petition and bore the petitioner's signatures, which should suffice to authenticate the documents. 2. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 90(3) of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951 Section 90(3) of the Act mandates the Tribunal to dismiss an election petition that does not comply with the provisions of Section 81. The High Court interpreted this to mean that any deviation from the requirements of Section 81(3), including the omission of the words "true copy," would compel the Tribunal to dismiss the petition. The Supreme Court, however, considered whether the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to dismiss under Section 90(3) was limited to defects in the petition itself or extended to defects in the copies accompanying the petition. The Court concluded that if the copies were true and bore the petitioner's signature, the requirement of Section 81(3) was substantially met, and thus, the Tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 90(3) was not triggered. 3. Substantial Compliance versus Literal Compliance with Statutory Requirements The appellant argued for a doctrine of substantial compliance, suggesting that the omission of the words "true copy" was a minor defect that did not affect the validity of the petition. The Supreme Court referred to its earlier decisions, including Kamaraj Nadar v. Kunju Thevar and Murarka v. Roop Singh, to emphasize that substantial compliance with statutory requirements could suffice. The Court highlighted that the purpose of Section 81(3) was to ensure that the respondents received true copies of the petition for their defense. Since the copies were exact replicas and bore the petitioner's signatures, the Court held that there was substantial compliance with Section 81(3). The Court also noted that rigid adherence to form could defeat the substantive rights of the parties and the purpose of the legislation. Conclusion The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order dismissing the petition. The Court held that there had been substantial compliance with Section 81(3) of the Act, and therefore, the Tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 90(3) to dismiss the petition was not invoked. The Court directed that the Election Petition be heard and disposed of expeditiously and awarded costs to the appellant. Separate Judgments: No separate judgments were delivered by the judges. The analysis and conclusions were part of a single, unified judgment.
|
