T.M. JACOB versus C. POULOSE AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] 2 S.C.R. 659 · Decided: 15-04-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
•
T.M. JACOB 
A 
v. 
C. POULOSE AND ORS. 
APRIL 15, 1999 
[DR. A.S. ANAND, C.J.I., S.B. MAJMUDAR SUJATAV. 
B 
MANOHAR, K. VENKATASWAMI AND V.N. KHARE, JJ.] 
Representation of People Act, 1951 : Section 81 (3), 83(1) proviso and 
.86(1). Election:+-Election petition-Alleging corrupt practices-Affidavit-
ln support of-Copy-Defects in-Substantial or curable-Copy of affidavit C 
contained endorsement that affidavit was duly signed, verified and affirmed 
before Notary-l!otary also signed below the endorsement-But name, address, 
stamp and seal of Notary missing-Held : Non-compliance with S.81 (3) 
would entail dismissal of election petition under S.86(1)-But non-compliance 
with S.83(1) is a curable defect and does not attract S.86(1)-Expression D 
"copy" in S.81(3) does not mean an exact copy but one so true that no 
reasonable person could misunderstand as not being the same as the original-
There should be no substantial variation of a vital- nature as to mislead such 
a person to understand and meet the charges-The said defects are not of 
a vital nature and are curable-Hence, there is substantial compliance with 
S.81(3) rlw S.83(1)-Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, R.94-A and Form 25. E 
Words and Phrases : 
"Copy"-Meaning of-Jn the context of S.81(3) of the Representation 
of People Act, 1951. 
Doctrines: 
Doctrine of Substantial compliance-Discussed 
F 
The first respondent filed an election petition before the High Court 
challenging the election of the appellant to the State Legislative Assembly G 
on the ground of corrupt practices. The respondent served a copy of the 
election petition on the appellant along with a copy of the affidavit in support 
of the election petition. The copy of the affidavit supplied to the appellant 
contained the endorsements that the affidavit had been duly affirmed, signed 
and verified by respondent No. 1 before a Notary. Under the affirmation by 
the Notacy, the word, Sd/- Notary was also written. What was, however, found H 
659 
660 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1999] 2 S.C.R. 
A missing in the copy of the affidavit was the name and address of the Notary 
as well as the stamp and seal of the Notary, before whom the affidavit had 
been so affirmed and who had attested the affidavit. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
The appellant raised the following contentions before the High Court: 
(a) 
The vice which had been noticed in Dr. Shipra 's case in the copy 
of the affidavit served on the r:eturned candidate along with the 
copy of the election petition in that case was also p(ent in the 
present case. 
() 
(b) 
The election petition in the present case was liable to be rejected 
in limine for non-compliance with Section 81(3) of the 
Representation of People Act, 1951 on account of the defect in the 
true copy supplied to the appellant. 
(c) 
Annexure XV supplied to the appellant was not a true copy of 
Annexure XV filed with the election petition and the election 
petition was liable to be dismissed on that score alone for non-
compliance with the requirements of Section 81(3). 
' 
The High Court held that the election petition was not liable to be 
dismissed on the grounds raised by the appellant. Hence this appeal. 
The following question arose before this Court : 
Whether "in a case like the present one" the decision in Dr. Shipra 's 
case can apply keeping in view "certain wide observations" made in the 
opinion of Justice K. Ramaswamy and Justice Paripoornan in that case. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The defect found in the true copy of the affidavit in Dr. 
Shipra 's case was not merely the absence of the name of the Notary or his 
seal and stamp but a complete absence of "notarial endorsement" of the 
G verification as well as absence of an "afiramation" or "oath" by the election 
petitioner. It was in that context that the Bench had found in Dr. Shipra 's case 
that the returned candidate would have got the impression, on a perusal of 
the "true copy" of the affidavit, that there was no duly sworn and verified 
affidavit filed in support of the allegations of corrupt practice by the election 
petitioner. It was precisely:on account of this 'fatal' defect that K. Ramaswamy, 
H J opined that "the principle of substantial compliance cannot be accepted in 
-\ ... 
-
-
-· 
T.M. JACOB v. C. POULOSE & ORS. 
661 
the/act situation." (671-E-F-G] 
1.2. Thus, the judgment in Dr. Shipra's case is confined to the "fact 
situation" as existing in that case and has no application to the e

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