1983 (3) TMI 315 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with Section 117(1) of the Representation of People Act, 1951, and Rule 8 of the Madras High Court (Election Petitions) Rules, 1967.
2. Compliance with Section 81(3) of the Representation of People Act, 1951, regarding the non-supply of a photograph.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Compliance with Section 117(1) and Rule 8:
The first issue pertains to whether the election petition was liable to be dismissed in limine due to non-compliance with the requirements of Section 117(1) of the Representation of People Act, 1951, read with Rule 8 of the Madras High Court (Election Petitions) Rules, 1967.

- Facts and Procedural History: The respondent filed an election petition challenging the appellant's election, accompanied by a pre-receipted challan showing a deposit of Rs. 2,000 as security for costs. The appellant contended that the petition should be dismissed due to non-compliance with Section 117(1) and Rule 8, as the deposit was not made in cash directly to the High Court but through the Reserve Bank of India.

- High Court's Findings: The High Court held that although the deposit was not made in strict compliance with Rule 8, there was substantial compliance since the amount was deposited to the credit of the Registrar, High Court, within the stipulated time.

- Supreme Court's Analysis: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's view, stating that the requirement of making a deposit of Rs. 2,000 as security for costs is mandatory, but the manner of making such a deposit is directory. The Court emphasized that substantial compliance with the procedural requirements is sufficient, citing the principle that procedural law should not defeat the ends of justice. The Court referred to previous decisions, including K. Kamaraja Nadar v. Kunju Thevar, where it was held that substantial compliance with Section 117 is sufficient.

- Conclusion: The Supreme Court concluded that there was substantial compliance with Section 117(1) and Rule 8, as the deposit was made to the credit of the Registrar, High Court, in the Reserve Bank of India.

2. Compliance with Section 81(3) Regarding Non-Supply of a Photograph:
The second issue concerns whether the election petition was liable to be dismissed for non-compliance with Section 81(3) due to the non-supply of a photograph referred to in the petition.

- Facts and Procedural History: The respondent alleged that the appellant committed corrupt practices by incurring unauthorized election expenses, including erecting fancy banners. A photograph of one such banner was filed with the petition but was not supplied to the appellant.

- High Court's Findings: The High Court held that the photograph was merely a piece of evidence and not an integral part of the election petition. Therefore, failure to supply a copy of the photograph did not amount to a breach of Section 81(3).

- Supreme Court's Analysis: The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court, stating that the photograph was an integral part of the averments in paragraph 18(b) of the petition. The Court emphasized that the photograph provided a visual description essential to the allegations of corrupt practice. The Court held that non-compliance with Section 81(3) was fatal, as it amounted to a total and complete non-compliance with the statutory requirements.

- Conclusion: The Supreme Court held that the failure to supply a copy of the photograph amounted to non-compliance with Section 81(3), making the election petition liable to be dismissed under Section 86(1).

Judgment:
The Supreme Court dismissed all appeals and special leave petitions except Civil Appeal No. 38 (NCE) of 1981. For Civil Appeal No. 38 (NCE) of 1981, the Court upheld the High Court's finding of substantial compliance with Section 117(1) but reversed the High Court's decision regarding the non-supply of the photograph, holding that the election petition must be dismissed for non-compliance with Section 81(3). The Court directed the High Court to permit the appellant to withdraw the recrimination petition filed under Section 97 of the Act. The costs were to be borne by the parties as incurred.