LexMITHILESH KUMAR PANDEY versus BAIDYANATH YADAV AND ORS .
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
. c
D
..
E
F
H
..
278
•
MITHILESH KUMAR PANDEY
v.
•
BAIDYANATH YADAV AND ORS .
. January 2,
~984
[S. MURTAzA FAz~L Ai,r; o. CmNNApPA REDDY AND
.
.
RS. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.]
Repreientation of the People Act, 1951, Sec.tion•81(3~Co11structio11 of ihe
•.provisions of the sectiOn-Copy of ihe election Petition containing· several mistakes
Of Vital -ch'ara~ter, not fo'und i'n the orig'inal-Election petition is not nwintainable and
nJust·be disn1issed.
·
' .
. '
. '
.
.
.
.
.
In the genefal.electioiis held irrJune 1980, the appellant fought .is i. Congress(!)
candidate from Harla~hi Asscmb.ly constituency inBihar•and was·.~eclared elected.
·The respondent who was defeated filed an election petition in the. Patna High Court·
!is.ting a. large nwttber of persons through when corrupt practices were- alleged to
have been practised by the appellant. Siflce the copy of the petition, th6ugh attested·.
by the election petitioner under his own_ signature to he a true· copy, contitined
sCveral mistakes which ,\vere of a vCry vitaJ 'c.haracter, the apj)ellant contested the
petition atleging· that the mandatory provisions of section 83(3) of. the Representatfon
of People Act not having been cOil).plied vvith at ·an, thC petition should be dismissed
in lin~ine withoµt going into the merits of the Case. Though {he High Court found
, as ·a faCt. that a Tafge ·number of ·mistakes were there in the copy of the electib-n.
petition su.{,plied to the .appellant. Yef, as they were of a superficial and inSignifiw
·cant nature bordering_ on clerical or tY'pii1g mistakes,
on the whole;·there "'.as a
substantial compliance of ihe pro'v~sions of Section 81(3) of the ACt. Hence the
<ippeal ag;i.inst the interl~cutory order.
l
Allowing the appeal .and disrnis_sing the el.~tioh petition, ihe c01:u{
.
. HELD : r: 1 A Perstia.1 'of Sections 81(3). and 86 Of the
R6presentat_ion
of _the People Act reveals ·-that the ·statUtc intended that before an election petition
can· be entertained~ th~ Copy sent tO ·the elected candidate n1ust be a 1-rue copy,
railing which thcrC Would. be ·a serious diSobedience of the mandate Contained in
. s.81(3) which·would be fa tar to lhc maintainability of the said- peition. (281 FJ '
. .
.
.· .
'
.
.
..
1 :2
It is now well settled by a large catena Of atithorities of this Court that
thc'clectoral process by Which the verdict of the people has'been given is a sacrosanct ·
bne and ca-nnot be lightly set at naught unle;;s the groun_ds rrlendoned in the Act
for seiting ~side an election a.re held to -be proved.
Jn these circumstances, it is
manifest that the _provisions of .s.81(3) Of the act should be. G._onstr~ed to t~e letter
and spirit ·of the law because if the election petitioner docs not give full and Com-
plete n9tice of the allegations inade against. the returned candidate, he runs the. risk
of his petition being d.is1nissed in limine. (281 G-H]
. '
-
"
M.K. PANDEY v. BAID~\NATH
279
2
on a careful consideration and i;crutiny of the la\\ on the subject, the
following principl.es-·are Well established.;~
(l). that where the copy of the eleCtion petition served on the returned
candidate contains .only clefical or typographical mistakes· Which arc
of no consequence, the petition cannot be di·sn1issed straightway under
s .. 86 of the Act, (283 F]
(2) A true copy means a. copy which is wholly and substantially the same as
the original and wher~ there arc insignificant or minimal° 1nistakes, the
c.ourt n;i.ay _not tak~ notice thCreof, [283 G]
(3) wh.ere the Cop~ cOn{ains important on1issions or discrepan~ics of a vital
nature, which are likel:Y to cause prejudice t~ the defence of the returned
candidate, it cannot be ~aid that there has been a substantial compliance
o.f t.he provisions of s.81(3) of !he Act, (284 A]
(4) Pr·ime ·fade, the statute uses the words "true copy'' and the concept of
substantial con1pliance cannot be exten(\Cd too far to include serious
or.vital mistakes \vhich shed the char<icter of a trtie copy so that the copy
furnished.to the returned candidate ·cannot be said· to be. a true copy
within the meaning of s.81(3) of;thc Act, ~nd [284 Bl~
(5) As s.81(3) is incant to protect and safeguard the sac·rasanct electoral
p1'ocess so as not the disturb the verdici of the .voters, there is no room for
giVing a .Jiberal -or bt-o<i.d
ir~terpretation· to the provisions of the said
section. [284 CJ
..
.
.
MurarkExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.