U.S. SASIDHARAN versus K. KARUNAKARAN & ANR

Citation: [1989] 3 S.C.R. 958 · Decided: 23-08-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. DUTT · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
U.S. SASIDHARAN 
v. 
K. KARUNAKARAN & ANR 
AUGUST 23, 1989 
B 
[MURARI MOHON DUTT AND T. KOCHU THOMMEN, JJ.] 
The Representation of the People Act 1951-Sections 81 and 86---
Power of High Court to dismiss Election Petition-Document forms 
integral part of Election Petition and not furnished to respondent along-
with copy of the Petition-The effect thereof 
c 
The appellant was a voter in the Mala constituency of the Kerala 
Legislative Assembly, election whereof was held on March 23, 1987 and 
the first respondent, sitting Chief Minister of the State was declared 
elected from the said constituency. 
D 
The appellant challenged the validity of !st Respondent's election 
on the ground of various corrupt practices committed by him; It was 
alleged in the Election Petition that at the instigation of the first respon-
dent, Respondent No. 2 published a notice wherein it was stated that he 
was withdrawing his candidature. It was further stated in the notice 
that his purpose of contesting was to highlight the grievances of the 
E 
Kudumbi Samudayam community with a view to get that community 
the status of Scheduled Caste and since the Kerala Government under 
the leadership of the first respondent (returned candidate) had decided 
to give a favourable consideration in regard to the community's 
den.and for inclusion in the list of Scheduled Castes, it had become 
necessary for the first respondent to win the election. He thereby 
F 
offered his support to Respondent No. I. According to the appellant this 
act constituted a corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123 of 
the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 
It was further alleged by the Election Petitioner that Respondent 
No. I, committed corrupt practice by asking Government servants to 
G 
lead processions in support of his candidature. A photograph of a pro-
) 
' 
! 
~ 
'r 
.·~
cession was filed. 
,...,, 
Election Petitioner further alleged that at the instigation of the 
first respondent a video cassette called "Malayude Purogathi" had 
been used in the constituency wherein persons like Shri Jose P. George, 
H Government Pleader, Kerala High Court, Shri Tomas Thottappally, 
958 
( 
U.S. SASIDHARAN v. K. KARUNAKARAN 
959 
Veterinary Doctor spoke in support of the first respondent which is a 
corrupt practice. The video cassette was filed in a sealed cov~r. 
The first respondent contested the Election Petition and pleaded 
that since. the copies of the photograph, notice and the video cassette 
have not been furnished to him alongwith the Election Petition, the same 
was liable to be dismissed in limine under section 86(1) for non-
compliance with the provisions of section 83(1). 
The High Court rejected the contention of the appellant that 
Respondent No. l could obtain copies of the documents from the High 
Court; and defend his case, and took the view that non-furnishing to the 
respondent copies of the documents alongwith a copy of the Election 
Petition was non-compliance with section 81(3) and as such, the election 
petition was liable to be dismissed, which the High Court did. Hence 
this appeal. 
Almost identical arguments were advanced before this Court. 
Counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the video cassette 
etc. do not from an integral part of the petition, on the other hand, 
they had been filed in the proceedings as evidence of facts and copies of 
such documents need not he served on the respondent alongwith a copy 
of the Election Petition. On behalf of the first respondent it was mainly 
argued that failure to supply the documents violates the provisions of 
section 81(3) as in the absence of those the Election Petition served 
cannot be said to be true copy of the election petition as contemplated 
by section 81(3) of the Act. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
HELD: An election is the democratic method for selecting the 
F 
representatives of the people in Parliament or in the Legislative Assem-
bly. When a candidate gets himself elected by adopting or committing 
any corrupt practice, his election must he set aside on proof of such 
corrupt practice. At the same time, the procedure prescribed hy the Act 
for challenging an election must be strictly followed. [964H-965A] 
Satya Narain v. Dhuja Ram, [1974] 3 SCR 20. 
Whenever there is an allegation of corrupt practice, the election 
petition shall contain a concise statement as to the material fact on 
which the petitioner relies and also must set f

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