9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (1) TMI 981X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rojected by the appellant in IA 2806/99 to the maintainability of the election petition was that since the affidavit filed in support of allegations of corrupt practice was not drawn up in the manner prescribed by Section 83(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) read with Rule 94-A (hereinafter the Rules ) in the prescribed form No.25, the defect was fatal and the election petition was liable to be dismissed under Section 86(1) of the Act for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 83 of the Act. The precise objection raised in I.A. No.5957 of 1999 was to the effect that since election petition had been drawn-up in Hindi language and not English language the same was liable to be dismissed not having been drawn up in English language as required by Rule 2(b) of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules (hereinafter referred to as the High Court Rules ). Both applications were resisted by the election petitioner. Vide order dated 4th February, 2000 a learned Single Judge of the High Court rejected both applications. Mr. G.L. Sanghi, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that there was material ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d form, in support of allegations of corrupt practice is contained in Section 83(1) of the Act. Thus an election petition is not liable to be dismissed in limine under Section 86 of the Act, for allged non-compliance with provisions of Section 83(1) of the Act or of its proviso. What other consequences, if any, may follow from the an allegedly defective affidavit, is to be judged at the trial of an election petition but Section 86(1) of the Ac in terms cannot be attracted to such a case. In F.A. Sapa and others vs. Singora and others: (1991) 3 SCC 375 a three Judge Bench of this Court specifically dealt with an issue concerning defects in the verification of an election petition as well as of defects in the affidavit accompanying an election petition wherein allegations of corrupt practice are made. After considering the provisions of Sections 83 and 86 of the Act, as also the requirements of Form No.25 prescribed by Rule 94-A of the Rules and relevant provisions of the Code of Civil procedure , it was held : From the text of the relevant provisions of the R.P. Act, Rule 94-A and Form 25 as well as Order 6 Rule 15 and Order 19 Rule 3 of the Code and the resume of the case l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e provisions of Rule 9 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules regarding the election petitions framed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court by reference to Rule 7 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules found in Chapter III regarding affidavits cannot be made use of for this purpose. The former set of rules are made under Article 225 of the Constitution and cannot make any substantive law and the rules themselves on a perusal of them would show that they relate merely to procedural matters unlike rules made under Section 122 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (Emphasis supplied) Rejecting the preliminary objection to the maintainability of the election petition for non-compliance with the High Court Rules, in Prabhu Narain s case this Court held : Further more according to Section 86 of the Representation of People Act only petition which do not comply with the provision of Sections 81 or 82 or 117 are liable to be dismissed. We, therefore, over-rule the preliminary objection. To appreciate the effect of non-compliance with Rule 2(b) of the High Court Rules, it is appropriate to notice some of the relevant statutory provisions at this stage. Rule 2 of the High Court Rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. Section 81 of the Act deals with the presentation of an election petition while Section 82 deals with parties to the election petition and Section 83 with contents of such a petition. Article 348 expressly deals with the language to be used in the Supreme Court and the High Courts and lays down in Article 348 (1) (a) that all proceedings in the Supreme Court and every High Court shall be in the English language. Article 348(2) (supra), however, carves out an exception to the above general rule. The non-abstante clause with which Article 348(2) opens, unmistakably shows that the Governor of a State, with the previous consent of the President may authorize the use of Hindi or any other language in proceedings in the High Court having its principal seat in that State, save and except that judgment, decree or order passed or made by such High Court , shall be in the English language as required by Article 348(1). By a Notification dated 18th September, 1971 issued by the Governor of Madhya Pradesh, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (2) of Article 348 of the Constitution of India, with the previous consent of the President of India, authorised the use of Hindi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion by necessary implication stand clothed with such a statutory character which could not be deemed to have been affected by an order relating to authorization contemplated under Article 348 (2) of the Constitution of India so as to take away statutory rigour of the Rules prescribing a requirement of an election petition to be written in English language, numbering separately the paragraphs thereof as provided in rule 2 of the aforesaid rules relating to election petitions. The interpretation placed on rule 2 of the High Court Rules, giving it almost primacy over Article 348(2) of the Constitution, in Jai Bhansingh s case to our mind is fallacious. The learned single Judge appears to have lost sight of the position that R les framed by the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 225 of the Constitution of India are only rules of procedure and do not constitute substantive law and those rules cannot effect the import of constitutional provisions contained in Article 348(2) of the Constitution. The high pedestal on which Rule 2(b) of the High Court Rules has been placed in Jai Bhansingh s case, not only violates clear constitutional provisions but also introduces a cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the judgment in Devilal s case (supra) has been distinguished does not stand to reason. We have not been able to appreciate the logic of the observations of the learned Single Judge in Devilal s case (supra) that the controversy in Jai Bhansingh s case was quite different and not confined to the applicability of section 86 of the Act alone. A reference to paragraph 41 of the judgment in Jai Bhansingh s case dismissing the election petition in limine, brings out the fallacy of the difference , as perceived by the learned Single Judge. It was observed : In view of what has been indicated hereinabove, I have no hesitation in holding that the present election petition as framed is not at all entertainable. Since even the limitation for filing a fresh election petition in accordance with law and in the manner prescribed has also run out, it is not possible or permissible to permit the petitioner to remove the defect in the presentation of the election petition, the present election petition in the circumstances is not at all triable. (Emphasis supplied) How could it then be said that the controversy in the two cases was, different is not understandable? We ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
