RAM PRASAD SARMA versus MANI KUMAR SUBBA AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 473 · Decided: 29-10-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

RAM PRASAD SARMA 
v. 
MANI KUMAR SUBBA AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 29, 2002 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] 
Election Laws; Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951; Sections 81(1), 
81(3), 82 and 86 (1): 
A 
B 
Election Petition-True copy of the affidavit does not contain Oath C 
Commissioner's endorsement-Petition dismissed by High Court for non-
compliance of provision of law- Correctness of-Held: In election matters 
strict compliance of legal provisions is necessary-But purpose of law is not 
to facilitate the returned candidate to avoid trial of issues of corrupt practices 
on the basis of any little defect-Mere omission in indicating the name/ D 
endorsement of Oath Commissioner would not be material when an averment 
that affidavit was sworn in support of allegation of corrupt practices, signed 
by the petitioner is available in true copy of the affidavit. 
Election Petition-Necessary parties-lmpleadment of-Notice to one 
of the candidates by incorrect name but at correct address-Effect of-Held, E 
it is a case of spelling mistake, and of little consequence. 
Appellant and respondents contested the Lok Sabha elections, 1999, in 
which Respondent No.1 was declared elected. Appellant challenged the election 
of Respondent No.1 on the ground of booth capturing and rigging. High Court 
dismissed the petition on the ground that copy of the affidavit supplied to F 
Respondent No.1 did not contain the affirmation by the appellant/Oath 
Commissioner's endorsement, which amounts to non-compliance of Section 
81(3) of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951 but it negatived the plea 
oflimitation and non-impleadment of necessary parties. Hence these appeals. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I. I. It is true that in the matters relating to elections and election 
petitions, strict compliance of the legal provisions is necessary and full care 
G 
is to be taken to see that rights of an elected representative are not lightly 
disturbed. But an election petition is not to be thrown at the threshold on the H 
473 
474 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A slightest pretext of one kind or the other which may or may not have any 
material bearing on the factors to be strictly adhered to in such matters. It is 
substance not form which would matter. If it is permitted otherwise, the 
returned candidate would only be in the look out microscopically for any kind 
of technical lacuna or defect to abort the endeavour of the petitioner to bring 
B to trial the issues relating to corrupt practices in the elections. The purpose 
of the law on the point cannot be to allow the returned candidate to avoid the 
trial of the issues of corrupt practices raised against him on the basis of any 
little defect which may not result in any vital variation between the original 
and the true copy so as to have the effect of misleading the returned candidate. 
c 
1484-G-H; 485-A, Bl 
TM Jacob v. C. Poulose and Ors., 119991 4 SCC 274 and Murarka 
Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar v. Roop Singh Rathore and Ors., AIR (1964) S.C. 
1545, followed. 
Ani/ R. Deshmukh v. Onkar N. Wagh and Ors., 119991 2 SCC 205 and 
D Sri T Phungzathang v. Sri Hangkhanlian and Ors., (2001) 5 SCALE 599, 
relied on. 
Dr. Shipra (Smt.) v. Shanti Lai Khoiwal, 11996) S SCC 181, overruled. 
1.2. Mere omission of indicating the name of the Oath Commissioner 
E or an endorsement in the true copy that the affidavit was attested by an Oath . 
Commissioner bearing his stamp and seal etc. would not be material. Once 
an averment is there that affidavit was being sworn in support of allegations 
of corrupt practices and that the petitioner had put his signature thereon, 
primafacie fulfilment of such a legal requirement is adequately reflected even 
in ab~ence of name and seal etc. of Oath Commissioner in the true copy. 
F 
" 
(487-E, Fl 
1.3. In the Petition all the contesting candidates were impleaded as 
respondents who had contested the election; that along with the election 
petition, copy of Return of Election filed in Form 21E under Rule 64 of the 
G Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 which contains the result of the election as 
well as the list of candidates. The said list is on record and the name of 
H 
Respondent No. ll is indicated at Serial No. 7 having contested as an 
independent candidate. It is thus evident that it is not as ifthe correct name 
is not available on the record of the case. Apparently, it seems to be a case of 
spelling mistake and it is of little
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.