LexDR. VIJAY LAXMI SADHO versus JAGDISH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
DR. VIJA Y LAXMI SADHO v. JAG DISH JANUARY 5. 2001 [DR. A.S. ANAND CJ., R.C. LAHOTI AND SHlVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] Election laws: Representation of the People Act, 1951: Section 83 and 86-Election-Election petition-Maintainability of- Corrupt practice-Affidavit in support of-Not drawn -up in prescribedform- Dismissal of petition in limine on this ground-Permissibility of-Held: Defect A B c in affidavit is a curable one-Hence, petition not liable to be dismissed in limine-Any consequences arising from such 'defective' affidavit have to be D judged at the trial of the election petition-But S.86(/) not attracted to such a case. Madhya Pradesh High Court rules: Rule 2(b). Election petition-Drawn-up in Hindi language-Maintainability of- E Rules stipulated every election petition to be drawn-up in English language- State Government, by a notification issued by the Governor with the previous consent of the President, authorised Hindi for use in all proceedings of High Court-High Court held that the election petition was maintainable- Correctness of-Held. Rules relating to trial of election petitions are only F procedural in nature and not 'substantive law '-Art. 348(2) permits use of Hindi in High Court-R.2(b) cannot render Art. 348(2) meaningless-Hence, election petition can be filed in Hindi language and it cannot be dismissed at the threshold under S.86-Constitllfion of India, 1950, Arts. 225, 229 and 348-Practice and Procedure. The respondent (defeated candidate) filed an election petition before the t High Court challenging the election of the appellant (returned candidate) on grounds of corrupt practice. The election petition had been drawn-up in Hindi Language. The affidavit filed in support of the election petition was also drawn-up in Hindi language. 95 G H 96 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] l S.C.R. A The appellant raised preliminary objeCtions to the maintainability of the election petition on the grounds that the affidavit was not drawn-up in the -f manner prescribed by Section 83(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 which was a fatal defect; that the election petition was not drawn-up in the English language as required by Rule 2(b) of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules; and that the election petition was liable to be dismissed in B limine under Section 86(1) of the Act for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 83 of the Act. The High Court rejected the preliminary objections. Hence this appeal. c Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: I. I. An election petition is liable to be dismissed in limine under Section 86(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 only if the election petition does not comply with either the provisions of 'Section 81 or Section 82 or Section 107 of the Act'. The requirement of filing an affidavit along with an election petition, in the prescribed form, in support D 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 alleged non-compliance with the provisions of Section 83(1) of the Act or of its proviso. What other consequences, if any, may follow from an allegedly 'defective' affidavit, is to be judged at the trial of an election petition, but Section 86(1) of the Act in terms cannot be E attracted to such a case. (99-C-Df F 1.2. The defect in verification of an affidavit is curable and does not merit dismissal of an election petition in Ii mine under Section 86(1) of the Act. (100-CI F.A. Sapa v. Singora, (1991) 3 SCC 375 and H.D. Revanna v. G. Pultaswamy Gowda, (1999) 2 SCC 217, relied on. 2.1. Rules framed by the High Court relating to trial of election petitions are only procedural in nature and do not constitute "substantive law". Those G Rules have to be read along with other statutory provisions to appreciate the consequences of non-compliance with the High Court Rules. (102-EJ 2.2. A Notification issued by the Governor of Madhya Pradesh, in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 348(2) of the Constitution of India, with the previous consent of the President of India, authorised the use H of Hindi language in all proceedings of the High Court other than for - DR. V.L. SADHO v. JAG DISH [DR. A.S. ANAND, CJ.] 97 drawing-up decrees, orders and judgments of the High Court, subject to A certain conditions. Under the said Notification, appeals, petitions etc.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.