KAMALAM (M.) versus DR. V. A. SYED MOHAMAD

Citation: [1978] 3 S.C.R. 446 · Decided: 08-03-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
446 
KAMALAM (M . .) 
v. 
DR. V. A. SYED MOHAMAD 
March 8, 1978 
[P. N. BHAGWATI AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.] 
Representation of the People Act, 1951, Ss; 81(3) 83 and S6(i)-Election 
Petition and affidcvit were tied together as one document and two copies thereof 
filed for services on the respondent-Signature of the appellant by way of 
authentication appearing at the foot of the copy of the affidavit, but not sepa-
rately appended at the foot of the copy of the election petition-Whether there 
was non-compliance with S. 81 (3) and the electivn petition liable to be disrni.~sed 
u /s 86 (I )-Interpretation of S. 81(3) in the light of Ss. 83 and 86 (I). 
Sub section (3) of Sectioo 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 
requires that every election petition shall be accompanied by as many copies 
thereof as 'there ar_e respondents mentioned in the petition, and every such copy 
shall be attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy 
of the petition. 
Where the petition alleges any corrupt practice, the proviso to 
S. 83(1) of the Act requires that "the petitio1n shall also be accompanied by 
an affidavit in the prescribed form in support of the a.llegation of such corrupt 
practice &nd the particulars thereof.'' 
The appellant, a rival candidate, cha.Uenged the election of rhe respondent 
to the Lok Sabha in the elections held on 19-3-1977 from l(ozhikode consti-
. tuency under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 alleg:•ng corrupt prac-
tice. 
The election petition was duly signed and. verified by the appellant and 
it V·ias accompanied by the requisite affidavit in support of the allegatim1s of 
corrupt practice and their particulars. : The election petition and the affidavit 
were tied together as one document. 
The signature of the appellant by wa;v· oi 
a.uthentication appeared at the foot of the copy of the affidavit, but there was 
no such signature separately appended at the foot of the copy of the election 
petition. 
The respondent raised a preliminary obje·ction against the ma:ntain· 
ability of the election petition and contended that since the copy of 1he election 
petition V<'as not attested by the appellant under her ownl signature to be a uue 
copy, there was non-compliance with section 81, sub section (3) and hence th;:· 
petitioner V.'as liable to be dismissed vide Section 86, sub section (1). 
The 
High Court acC"epted the contention and dismissed the petition. 
Allowing the appeal under section 116A of the Representation of the People 
Act. 1951, the Court. 
llELD : ( J) The election petition is in truth and reatity one documet~1t c:Jn-
sisting of twu parts, one being the election petition proper and the other being 
the aflld2.vit referred to in the proviso to section 83, sub-s-ection (1). 
The 
context in \Vhich the proviso occurs clearly suggests that the affida.vit is intended 
to be regarded as. part of the election petition. 
Otherwisefi it need not have 
been introduced in a section dealing with contents of an election petition nor 
figured as a proviso to a sub-sectio'i.1 which lays doW'Jl what shall be the con-
tents of an election petition. 
The o:>py of th_e election petition required to be 
filed under the first pa.rt of sub section (3) of Section 81, would therefore 
on a fair reading of that provision along with secti:::in 83, include a c~py of the' 
affidavit [450 H, 451 A, H, 452 A] 
Sahodrabai J?ai v. Ram Singh Aharwar, (1968] 3 SCR 13, applied. 
(2) The lav;: does not require that the authC'flticating signature must be 
made hy the petitio'tler at any particular pla~e in the. copy of the electon peti~ 
tion. 
It may be at the top of the copy or in the rrnddle or at the end. The 
place of signature is immateri~l. so l?ng as it. appears that it is. ~ntended in 
authenticate the copy. When ong1nal signature ts made by the petitioner on the 
' 
Ji_.,,,~. 
-
' 
' 
', ..... 
,,.: r 
KAMAI.AM v. SYED MOHAMAD (Bhagwati;-J:)~ .. ~-·-
44 7 
copy of the elcctiOn _petition, it can safely. be presumed trult tiie signature is 
i\. 
made by the petitioner by ·1r·~z cf autlletl 0rating the copy to be a true copy of 
the election petition. In the instant case the requirement of the last part of 
sub-section (3) of section 81 was complied -with by the appellant in as much as 
the copy of the election petition was authenticated , to be a ·true copy by the 
appellant by placing her signature at the foot of the copy of the affidavit ·whic~ 
f

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