MULAYAM SINGH YADAV versus DHARAMPAL YADAV AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] 3 S.C.R. 1103 · Decided: 24-07-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.P. BHARUCHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

MULA YAM SINGH Y ADA V 
A 
v. 
DHARAMPAL Y ADA V AND" ORS. 
·JULY 24, 2001 
(S.P. BHARUCHA, Y.K. SABHARWAL AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] 
B 
Election Laws: 
Representation of the People Act, 1951-Sections 81, 83 and 86-
Election Petition-Allegations of booth capturing, arson and violence- C 
Supported by video cassette-Original video cassette mentioned and verified 
in one of the schedules to the Election Petition-Non-filling of original video 
cassette along with the Election Petition-Effect of-Election Petition is 
incomplete without the original video cassette which is an integral part 
thereof. 
D 
In the 1998 election to Parliament; the appellant defeated the 
respondent. In an election petition filed in the High Court, respondent 
challenged the election of the appellant on the ground that the appellant was 
involved in large scale booth capturing, arson and violence. The respondent 
filed 15 video cassettes as _Scheduled 14 to the election petition, which were E 
copies of the video recordings shown by different television ch~nnels and the· 
video recording taken under the orders of the Election Commission. 
The appellant filed interim applications before the High Court raising 
preliminary objections as to the maintainability of the election petition on the 
ground that the respondent has not filed the original video cassette and has F 
filed only 15 copies of video cassette along with the election petition. The/ 
High Court dismissed the application on the ground that the video cassette 
cJid not form part of the election petition; that they were filed by way of 
evidence in support of the allegations of corrupt practice; and that the non-
filling of the original video cassette could not be described as non-observance 
of Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 
G 
In appeal to this Court, the appellant submitted that the original of the 
' video cassette, which was mentioned and verified in Schedule 14 had not been 
filed along with the election petition; and that there was no other averment 
in the election petition or in the schedules which gave particulars about the H 
1103 
1104 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[200 I] 3 S.C.R. 
A alleged arson and violence. 
c 
The respondent contended that all the Schedules other than Schedule 
14 were made part of the election petition and that Schedule 14 merely 
mentioned tl?!lt the video cassette was to be used as evidence in support of 
the allegations of corrupt practice by the appellant. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 
contemplates the presentation of an election petition that is complete and 
satisfies the requirements of Section 83. An election petition that is not . 
complete must, having due regard to the imperative mandate of section 86, 
be dismissed. ( 1110-G-H) 
1.2. In the instant case the video cassette mentioned and verified in 
Schedule 14 is an integral part of the election petition; it should have been 
D filed in Court along with copies thereof for service upon the respondents. 
Whereas 15 copies were filed for service upon the respondents, the original 
video cassette was not filed. The election petition as filed was, therefore, not 
complete. (1110-FJ 
·1 
. •, . 1.3. Ordinarily, what is shown upon the video cassette would have been 
E set out in the election petition and then that video cassette could have been 
said to be evidence of the allegations made in the election petition. But in 
the election petition there is not description of what is sho.wn on the video 
cassette except to say that it shows booth capturing, violence and arson. As 
to booth capturing, there are particulars contained in the other Schedules 
but even in that regard the later paragraphs of the election petition make 
F reference to Schedule 14. So far as the allegations ofviolence arid ·arson are 
·concerned, there are no particulars in the election petition absent the video 
cassette; yet it has not been filed along with the election petition. 
· (1110-C-EI 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 4396-
4398 of 2000. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.7.99 of the Allahabad High Court 
in A. Nos. 22 and 25 of 1998 in E.P. No. 6of1998. 
H 
Ashok H. Desai, V.A. Mohta, M.L. Verma, K;K. Lahiri, Ejaz Maqbool, 
. 
r-
M.S. YADAV v. DHARAMPAL YADAV [BHARUCHA, J.) 
1105 
Vineet Saran, Pallav Sishodia, B.K. Mishra, Ujjawal K. Jha, Raghvender, Ms. A 
Shafali Shukla, Shakil Ahmed Syed, M. Ta
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.