YOUARAJ RAI versus CHANDER BAHADUR KARKI

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 1184 · Decided: 15-12-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.K. SABHARWAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

/ 
'· 
A 
YOUARAJRAI 
v. 
CHANDER BAHADUR KARKI 
DECEMBER 15, 2006 
B 
[Y.K. SABHARWAL, CJI., C.K. THAKKERAND R.V. RAVEENDRAN, JJ.] 
Election laws: 
c 
- Representation of People Act, 1951-s.8/--'-Election to the legislative 
Assembly for the State-limitation period for filing election petition-Held, 
relevant date for calculation of limitation period is 'date of election of 
returned candidate' and not the date on which last candidate was declared 
elected at a general election. 
D 
The Election Commission of India issued a notification on March 16, 
2004 for holding general election to the Legislative Assembly for the State 
of Sikkim. Total constituencies were 32. The appeilants filed their nomination 
papers on 23.4.2004. They were found defective and were rejected. As a result 
on 26.4.2004, which was the last date for withdrawal of candidature, in all the 
three above constituencies only one candidate was in the field. The Returning 
E Officer, therefore, declared the first respondent (in all the matters) elected 
(un-contested). In respect of other constituencies, however polling was held 
on 10.5.2004 and after counting of votes, results were declared on 17.5.2004. 
Appellants filed Election petition in High Court on 25.6.2004. An 
J 
objection-was raised by the returned candidates as to maintainability of 
F petitions on the ground of limitation. It was contended that in accordance 
with the provi!;ions of Section 81 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 
an election petition could be presented calling in question any election of a 
successful candidate within a period of 45 days from the date of election of 
the returned candidate; that the returned candidates were declared elected 
G (un-contested) on 26.4.2004, thus they are barred by limitation. High Court 
upheld the objection and dismissed the Election petition holding that they were 
barred by limitation. Hence these appeals. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
H 
1184 
' ... 
. 
. 
~ 
YOUARAJ RAJ v. CHANDER BAHADUR KARKI 
1185 
HELD: 1.1. Section 81 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 lays A 
down the period of limitation for filing an election petition. Admittedly, it is 
in two parts. The first part provides that an election petition calling in question 
any election could be filed by a candidate or an elector within 45 days from 
the date of the election of the returned candidate. The second part of the section 
covers those cases where there are more than one returned candidate at the 
election and the dates of their elections are different. In such cases, the later B 
of the two dates would be the starting point of limitation for the purpose of 
filing an election petition. [1192-C-D) 
1.2. The second part of Section 81 does not deal with election to 
Legislative Assembly or to the House of People (Lok Sabha), but to Legislative C 
Council of State or to Council of States (Rajya Sabha). That part speaks of 
more than one returned candidate at the election which is an eventuality only 
in the election of Legislative Council of State or Council of State where at a 
single election by the same electorate more than one candidate could be 
elected. The High Court was, therefore, right in holding that the relevant date 
for calculation of the period of limitation was 'the date of election of the D 
returned candidate' and an election petition ought to be filed within forty-five 
days from such date. (1192-E-F) 
V. V. Giri v. D. Suri Dora & Ors., [1960) 1 SCR 425 and P.R. Francis v. 
A. V. Aryian, AIR (1968) Ker 252, referred to. 
2.1. Upholding of submission that the limitation for filing an election 
petition should be reckoned not with reference to the date on which the 
candidate whose election is challenged was declared elected, but with reference 
E 
to the date on which the last candidate was declared elected at a general 
election would not only make the provision cumbersome and contrary to the 
provisions of the Act, particularly, against the scheme of amendments F 
introduced in 1956 and 1961 but would make starting point oflimitation 
uncertain, indefinite and fluctuating. Such construction would require 
complete details of all returned candidates of Legislative Assembly ofa State. 
Moreover, where the challenge is to an election of a Member of House of People 
full particulars in different constituencies throughout the country must be G 
before the Election Tribunal. The Tribunal also is bound to inquire into such 
particulars wi

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