SRI T. PHUNZATHANG versus SRI HANGKHANILIAN AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 256 · Decided: 28-08-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

I 
A 
SRI T. PHUNZATHANG 
v. 
SRI HANGKHANILIAN AND ORS. 
AUGUST 28, 2001 
B [DR. A.S. ANAND, CJ., R.C. LAHOTI AND N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.] 
c 
Representation of People Act, 1951: Sections 81(1), (3), 83(/)(c), 86(1) 
and 123. 
Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 : Rule 94(A) and Form 25. 
Election petition-Challenge of election result-A/legation of corrupt 
practice-Affidavit in support of corrupt practice-Copy supplied to 
respondent-Defect in-Endorsement made by Oath Commissioner attesting 
D the affidavit, signature and rubber stamp not appearing on copy of affidavit 
supplied-Subsequently said omission rectified and copies containing entire 
verification supplied to respondent-Held, dismissal of election petition not 
valid. 
E 
Words and Phrases : 
'Copy'-Meaning of-Jn the context of Section 81 (3) of the Representation 
of People Act, 1951. 
The appellant filed an election petition challenging the election of 
respondent No. I. One of the grounds of challenge was that respondent No.I 
had indulged in corrupt practice as contemplated in Section 123 of the 
F Representation of People Act, I951. Respondent No.I filed an application 
contending that copies of the affidavits filed in support of the corrupt practices 
alleged in the election petition and supplied to him were defective as they did 
not contain due verification and attestation by the Oath Commissioner or by 
prescribed authority. The writ summons were complete in all respects 
G excepting that the endorsement made by the Oath Commissioner attesting 
the affidavit sworn by the deponent before him, his signature and rubber 
stamp did not appear on the copy of affidavit delivered alongwith the copy 
of election petition to respondent No. I. Consequently, it was contended that 
there was violation of the mandatory requirement of Section 8I(3) and 83(I) 
of the Act and therefore the election petition was liable to be dismissed. In 
H 
256 
,,... 
• 
SRI T. PHUNZATHANG v. SRI HANGKHANILIAN 
257 
his application no grievance was raised by respondent No. 1 that the copy A 
delivered to him was not in conformity with the original and, therefore, he 
was prejudiced in his defence. But in his next application respondent No.1 
took objection in this regard. However, a few days before this application was 
taken up for hearing the plaintiff rectified the omission and supplied fresh 
copies of affidavits containing full particulars of the attestation/verification B 
made in support of the affidavit to the respondents and their advocates. 
Relying on two judgments of this Court viz. Dr. Shipra case* and Harcharan 
Singh Josh's case** the High Court dismissed the election petition on the 
ground of non-compliance with sub-section (3) of Section 81 read with Section 
83(l)(c) of the Act. 
In appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant that 
(i) the High Court erred in placing reliance on the said two judgments; (ii) 
Section 81(3) does not contemplate the supply.of a true copy in the sense that 
c 
it should be an identical copy of the original filed before the Court; it would 
suffice if the copy supplied is substantially correct and the omissions are not 
such as would in any manner mislead the respondent in presenting his case D 
~ 
or would prejudice his defence in any manner; (iii) the omission in the copy 
having been rectified by the supply of copies containing entire verification, 
the question of election petition being dismissed on technical ground did not 
arise. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : Per Hegde, J. (For himself and Dr. A.S. Anand, CJ) 
1. The requirement of serving a true copy of an election petition and 
E 
the affidavit filed in support of the allegations of corrupt practice on the 
respondent in the election petition is of substance and not of form. (265-C] 
F 
2. The expression "copy" in Section 81(3) of the Representation of 
People Act, 1951 means a copy which is substantially the same as original, 
variation if any from the original should not be vital in nature or should not 
be such that can possibly mislead a reasonable person in meeting the 
allegation. If the copy differs in material particulars from the original same G 
cannot be cured after the period of limitation. (265-F-GJ 
3. In this case the only lacunae pointed out by the contesting respondent 
is that the copy supplied to him did not contain the verification or affirmation 
made by the Oath Commissioner or the Prescribed Authority as required in 
Form 25

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