2003 (2) TMI 509 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the presentation of election petitions before the Stamp Reporter.
2. Competence of the High Court to frame rules for receiving election petitions.
3. Interpretation of "High Court" in the context of Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act (RPA).

Summary:

1. Validity of the Presentation of Election Petitions Before the Stamp Reporter:
The appellant contested the last election to the legislative assembly from the Badarpur Legislative Assembly Constituency of Assam and was declared duly elected. The contesting respondent filed an Election Petition u/s 80/81 of the RPA challenging the appellant's election. The petition was presented before the Stamp Reporter-cum-Oath Commissioner of the High Court of Assam. The appellant raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition, arguing that it should have been presented either before the Designated Election Judge or the Chief Justice of the High Court, and that presentation before the Stamp Reporter was invalid u/s 81 of the Act. The Designated Election Judge overruled this objection, holding that the election petition was properly presented.

2. Competence of the High Court to Frame Rules for Receiving Election Petitions:
The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the High Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain and decide on merits a petition presented to a Stamp Reporter, as the presentation itself is a nullity. On the other hand, the respondents relied on Chapter VIIIA of the Gauhati High Court Rules, which allows for the presentation of election petitions before the Stamp Reporter. The court noted that the High Court, being a constitutional court and a court of record with plenary jurisdiction, has the authority to frame rules and issue directions regulating its own affairs and conduct of business. The court emphasized that administrative functions, such as receiving election petitions, can be delegated to the administrative or ministerial staff of the High Court.

3. Interpretation of "High Court" in the Context of Section 81 of the RPA:
The court clarified that the term "High Court" in Section 81 of the RPA denotes an institution and not literally the High Court as constituted within the meaning of Article 216 of the Constitution. It would be impractical to assume that the Chief Justice or all the Judges must personally receive election petitions. The court held that receiving an election petition is a ministerial function that can be performed by authorized administrative staff. The court further noted that the practice of receiving documents through administrative staff is well-established and necessary for the efficient functioning of the judiciary.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the presentation of election petitions to the Stamp Reporter of the High Court of Gauhati is valid. The court affirmed that the High Court has the competence to frame rules for receiving election petitions and that the term "High Court" in Section 81 of the RPA includes authorized administrative staff. The appeals were dismissed with costs, and counsel fees were set at Rs. 5000.