MURARKA RADHEY SHYAM RAM KUMAR versus ROOP SINGH RATHORE & OTHERS

Citation: [1964] 3 S.C.R. 573 · Decided: 07-05-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 15 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

3 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
573 
MURARKA RADHEY SHYAM RAM KUMAR 
ROOP SINGH RATHORE & OTHERS 
(and connected appeal) 
(B. P. SINHA c. J., s. K. DAS, RAGHUBAR DAYAL, 
N. 
AYYANGAR and 
J. R. MunHOLKAR JJ.) 
Election Di•putt-Joi111ler of parties-Joinder of eandi· 
date who did not contest-If invalidates electinn 
p<lition-
"0opy", meaning of-De/eels in verification and ajfidallit-Main· 
tainability of petition-Represintation of the People Act, 1951 
(43 of 19r.J), .a. 81,82,83,90. · 
' 
The validity of the election of the appellant to the House 
of the People at the third gen-.l"ll elections held in the month 
of February, 1962, was challeng'd by two of the electors of the 
constituency from which the appellant was elected, by filing 
election petitions for s.tting 
the election. The nomina-
tion paper of B, one of the two electors aforesaid, had been 
by the returning officer. The appellant who was one 
of the respondents to the two election petitions raised prdimi-
nary obj,ctions to the maintainability of the petitions and 
pleaded that they should be dismissrd on the ground•, inter 
alia, (!} that B whose nomination paper was rejected and who 
was not a contesting candidate was improperly impleaded as 
a respondent to the election petition in contravention of the 
provisioni of s. 82 of the Representation of the People Act, 
1951, (2l that there was non-compliance with the provisions of 
s. 81 (3} of the Act because the copy of the election petiiion 
served on the appellant was not a true copv of the original 
filed before the Election Commission, and (3) that there was 
non-compliance with the provisions of s. 83 of the Act inasmuch 
as (a} the election petition W'\S not verifierl in the manner laid 
down in s. 83, and (b) the affidavit in respect of corrupt prac• 
tices which accompanied the petition was neither properly 
made nor in the prescribed from. 
Bela (I) that where all the parties whom it was neces-
sary to join under the provisions of s: 82 of the Representation 
of. the People Act,' 1951, were joined as respondents to the 
JIJ6S 
Ma:1 7. 
. 1963 
Rat!h1y 
Shjaffl ·Ram x·umar 
•• 
Roop Singh Ratlwre 
574 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL . 
petition, the circumstance that a person who was not a neces-
ary party had also been impleaded did not amount to a contra-
vention of s. 82 of the Act; 
(2) the word "copy" in s. 81 (3) of the Act did not mean 
an absolutely exact copy but a copy so true that nobody could 
by any possibility misunderstand it, and that the test whether 
a copy \Vas a true one was whether any variation from the ori· 
ginal was calCulated to mislead an ordinary person; 
lnre Hewer, 
Kahan, (1882) 21 Ch. D 871, 
relied on. 
(3) that a defect in the verification of an election petition 
as required bys. 83 (I) (c) of the Act did not attracts. 90 .(3) 
and so was not fatal to the mintainability of the petition; and, 
(4) that a defect in the affidavit was not a sufficient 
· ground for dismissal of the petition. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal 
Nos. 30 and 31 of 1963. 
Appeals by special leave from the judgment 
and order dated \\ugust 31, 1962, of the Rajasthan 
High Court in D. B .. Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 37ti 
and 377 of 1962. 
M. O. Setalvad, G. S. Pathak, N. P. Nathwani, 
H. J .. Thacker and G. 0. Mathur for the appellant 
(in C.A. Nb. 30 of 1963). 
G. S. Pathak, N. P. Nathwani, H. J. Thac/mr 
and G. O. Mathur, for the appellant (in C.A. No .31 
of 1963). 
S. 0. Agarwa/11, R. K. Garg, D. P. Singh and 
M. K. Ramamurthi, for respondent No. 2 (in C. A. 
No. 30 of 1963). 
R. K. Garg, for respondent No. 2 (in C. A. 
No. 31 of 1963). 
V. K. Krishna Menon and Janardan Sharma, 
for the Intervener. 
3 S.C.R. 
SUPRE:mB COURT REPORTS 
fS75 
1963. May 7. 
The judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
S. K. DAS J.-These two appeals have been 
heard together as they raise some common questions 
of law and fact, and this judgment will govern them 
both. 
The appellant before us, Murarka Radhey 
Shyam Ram Kumar, was elected to the House of the 
People at the third general elections held in the 
month of February, 196t. He was elected from a 
constituency known as the Jhunjhunu Parliamentary 
Constituency in Rajasthan. 
lwo election petitions 
were filed for setting aside the election of the appel-
One of these was filed by one Ridmal Singh 
who stated that he was an elector in the said consti-
tuency. 
Another application was filed by one Balji 
who was also an elector in the sai

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