AELTEMESH REIN versus CHANDULAL CHANDRAKAR & OTHERS

Citation: [1981] 3 S.C.R. 142 · Decided: 10-03-1981 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
142 
AEL TEMESH REIN 
v. 
CHANDULAL CHANDRAKAR & OTHERS 
March 10, 1981 
(Y. V. CHANDRACHUD C.J., AND A.P., SEN, J.) 
Representation of the People Act, 1951-Sections 86 and 117 whether ultra-
vires of Article 329(b) of the Constitution. 
The appellant was a candidate for Election to the Lok Sabha in the General 
Elections. Respondent 1 was declared the successful candidate. The appellant 
filed Election Petition under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 
1951. The appellant expressly stated 
in his Election Petition that security 
amount of Rs. 2,000/- was being deposited along with the petition as required by 
section 117 of the Act but, in fact, no such deposit was made. The High Court 
dismissed the petition for non-compliance with the provisions of section 117. 
On Appeal to this Court, the appellant argued that sections 86 and 117 of the 
· Respresentation of the People Act, 1951 are ultra vires Article 329(b) of the Cons-
titution and, therefore, the High Court was in error in dismissing the election 
petition for non-compliance of section 117. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : (I) The Constitution by Article 329(b), has conferred authority 
on the appropriate legislature to pass a law providing for the authority to which 
the election petition may be presented and the manner of providing it. The 
provision of law which prescribes that an election petition shall be accompanied 
by the payment of security amount pertains to the area covered by the manner 
of the making of the election petition and is, therefore, within the authority of 
the Parliament. [143 G-H] 
(2) The question as to what is the consequence of non-compliance with 
section 117 of the Act has been settled by the decision of this Court in Charan 
Lal Sahu v. Nand Kishore Bhatt and Others [1974] 1 S.C.R. 294. [144 A] 
(3) The High Court was right in dismissing the election petition summarily 
in view of section 86(1) of the Act. [144 CJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 931 of 
1980. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.3.1980 of the Madhya 
Pradesh High Court in Election Petition No. 3/80. 
Aeltemesh Rein Appellant in person. 
AELTEMESH REIN v. CHANDULAL (Chandrachud, CJ.) 
143 
G.N. Rao and C.L. Sahu for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
CHANDRACHUD, C. J. 
The appellant, Aeltemesh Rein, was a 
candidate for election to the Lok Sabha from the Durg Parliamentary 
Constituency in the General Elections held in January 1980. Res-
pondent 1 having been declared as a successful candidate in the 
aforesaid election, the petitioner filed an election petition in the High 
Court of Madhya Pradesh under s. 81 of the Representation of the 
People Act, 1951 ('The Act'). The appellant stated expressly in his 
election petition that the security amount of Rs. 2,000/- was being 
deposited along with the petition as required by s. 117 of the Act 
but, in fact, no such deposit was made. 
The High Court dismissed 
the petition for non-compliance with the provisions of s. 117 and 
hence this appeal. 
It is urged by the appellant who appeared in person before us 
that sections 86 and 117 of the Representation of the People Act, 
1951 are ultra vires Article 329(b) of the Constitution and, therefore, 
the High Court was in error in dismissing the election petition for the 
reason that the provisions of s.117 were not complied with. We see no 
substance in this contention. Article 329(b) of the Constitution provid-
. es, in so far as material, that no election to either House of Parliament 
shall be called in question except by an election petition "presented 
to such authority and in such manner as may be provided for by or 
under any law made by the appropriate legislature". It is in 
pursuance of this provision that the Parliament provided by s. 117 
of the Act that at the time of presenting an election petition, the 
petitioner shall deposit in the High Court, in accordance with the 
rules of the High Court, a sum of Rs. 2,000/- .as security for the 
costs of the resp:mdent. 
We are unable to accept the peti-
tioner's argument that the 
words "in such 
manner" which 
occur in Article 329(b) are 
limited 
in their 
operation to 
procedural and not substantive requirements. The Constitution, 
by the aforesaid clause, has conferred author.ity on the appropriate 
legislature to pass a law providing for the authority to which the 
election petition may be presented and the manner
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.