F.A. SAPA ETC. ETC. versus SINGORA AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1991] 2 S.C.R. 752 · Decided: 10-05-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 10 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
F.A. SAPA ETC. ETC. 
v. 
SINGORA AND ORS. ETC. 
MAY 10, 1991 
[A.M. AHMADI, V. RAMASWAMI AND M. FATHIMA 
BEEVI JJ.] 
The Representation of the People Act, 1951-Sections 80, BOA, 
81, 82, 83, 86 read with Rules 94, 95-A and Form 25 of the Representa-
tion of the People's Rules, 1951-Presentation of"Eledion Petition-
Contents of-Trial Court's duty to '·ee whether complied with the statu-
tory requirements-Proper attestation and verification-Necessity of. 
The Representation of the People Act, 1951-Section 83-Safe-
guards against allegation of corrupt practices-Legislative intention 
explained. 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908--0rder VI, Rule, 15 read with 
Section 83, the Representation of the People's Act, 1951-Verification 
of election petition-Application of C'Jde. 
The Representation of the People Act, 1951-Chapter 11-
E 
Title-"Presentation of Election Petitions to Election Commission"-
Held requires amendment. 
The respondents, who lost the State Assembly elections as candi-
dates of the Mezo National Front(MNF) from different constituencies of 
Mizoram, challenged the election of the Congress (I) candidates on the 
F 
ground of corrupt practices in the High Court. 
The appellants-the returned candidates raised certain preliminary 
objections regarding the maintainability of each petition. On the basis 
thereof two preliminary issues were raised for consideration. The appel-
lants moved for striking off the pleadings. Thereupon, the original peti-
G 
tioners-the respondents applied for amendment of their election peti-
tions which was strongly opposed hy the appellants. The preliminary 
objections, the applications for striking off the pleadings and the 
amendment applications were heard together. 
The two preliminary issues raised were (i) whether the election 
H 
petitions were in confirmity wi!h the requirements of Sections 81 and 83 
752 
.-t· 
,.. _ 
F.A. SAPA v. SINGORA 
753 
of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951 and the Rules framed 
thereunder by the High Court and (ii) whether rule 1 and the other 
related rules and notes thereto enabling the filing of the Election Petition 
before the Stamp Reporter assigned to the election court by the Chief 
Justice were ultra vires Article 329 of the Constitution and Section 169 
read with Sections 80, 80A and 81 of the R.P. Act. 
The appellants contended that the election petitions being photo 
copies, could not be treated as election petitions as contemplated by 
law; that the copies of petitions served on them were not attested to be 
true copies of the original petitions as required by Section 81(3); that 
A 
B 
c 
the election petitions were not signed and verified in the manner laid 
down by the Code of Civil Procedure inasmuch as the source of infor-
mation bad not been disclosed In the verification or in the affidavit in 
Form 25 as required by rule 94A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 
(the Rules); that no schedule of material particulars of corrupt practice 
had been annexed to the affidavit purporting to be under Form 25, and 
that the presentation of the election petitions before the Stamp Reporter 
was inconsistent with Sections 80, 80A and 81 of the R.P. Act and D 
Article 329 of the Constitution. 
The averments in each election petition were identical. 
The High Court rejected the preliminary objections and partly 
allowed the applications for striking off the averments in the election 
E 
petitions and partly permitted certain amendments to the election peti-
tions, against which order the present appeals are filed in this Court 
under Article 136 of the Constitution. 
The returned candidate-the appellant contended that paragraph 3 
of the election petition was the most crucial paragraph inasmuch as__i_t F 
disclosed the names of towns and villages as well as the period during 
which the alleged corrupt practices were committed had been deli-
berately omitted from the verification clause and the affidavit; that 
failure to mention paragraph 3 of the election petition in both the verifi-
cation clause of the petition ·and the affidavit was fatal and cannot be 
cured after the expiry of the limitation period of 45 days; that the G 
affidavit was not in Form No. 25 prescribed under Rule 94A of the 
Rules and since Section 83 of the R.P. Act is mandatory and failure to 
adhere to Form No. 25 was fatal, as the doctrine of substantial comp-
liance bad no place in election law but even if that doctrine could be 
invoked, the responde

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.