REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6269 OF 2008

G.V. Sreerama Reddy & Anr. .... Appellant(s)

Versus

Returning Officer & Ors. .... Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

P. Sathasivam, J.

1) This appeal, under Section 116A of the

Representation of the People Act, 1951, is directed against

the order dated 19.09.2008 of the High Court of

Karnataka at Bangalore in Election Petition No. 4 of 2008

in and by which the High Court upheld the objection of

the Registry that there was no proper presentation of the

election petition in terms of Section 81 (1) of the

1
Representation of the People Act, 1951, (hereinafter

referred to as “the Act”), consequently dismissed the

election petition.

2) Election to Constituency No. 140, Bagepalli,

Karnataka Legislative Assembly was held in the General

Elections conducted in the State in 2008. Appellant No.1

was the candidate of the CPM party. Appellant No.2 was

his election agent. Respondent No.1 is the Returning

Officer of Bagepalli Legislative Assembly Constituency.

Respondent No.2 is the Congress candidate who has been

declared elected in the election held on 10.05.2008.

Respondent No.3 is the Observer appointed by the

Election Commission of India.

3) According to the appellants, election was held on

10.05.2008 and counting took place on 25.05.2008.

Initially, the Media Officer appointed by the Election

Commission announced appellant No.1 as the successful

candidate and declared him elected. When the election

agents and counting agents of appellant No.1 had left the

2
place of counting, an application for re-counting was

submitted by the second respondent and thereafter,

second respondent was declared elected. The appellants

filed an election petition under Section 81 of the Act on

various grounds pointing out large-scale irregularities and

illegalities committed by respondent-authorities in the

voting and the illegalities of allowing the recounting after

announcing the declaration of appellant No.1 as elected.

4) On 06.07.2008, the first appellant, through his

advocate, Shri Shiva Reddy presented the election petition

before the Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Karnataka.

The Registry of the High Court put up an office objection

that as the appellants were not present at the time of filing

of the election petition, the presentation of the papers

were not in accordance with Section 81 of the Act and as

such there was no proper filing of the election petition.

Based on the office objection, the matter was placed before

the learned Single Judge of the High Court dealing with

the election petition and arguments were heard. By the

3
impugned order, the learned Single Judge based on the

recorded statement of Registrar (Judicial) dated

07.07.2008 that “petitioners were not present while

presenting this petition” and finding that it was not a

proper presentation in terms of Section 81, dismissed the

election petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the

appellants have filed this appeal before this Court.

5) We have heard Mr. P.R. Ramasesh, learned counsel

appearing for the appellants and Dr. Sushil Balwada,

learned counsel appearing for the contesting second

respondent.

6) Since the election petition was dismissed at the

threshold on the alleged ground of improper filing, there is

no need to traverse various averments made therein. The

only question to be considered by this Court is whether

the election petition as presented was in accordance with

Section 81 (1) of the Act and whether the High Court was

right in dismissing the same as it was not presented by

the candidate or elector?

4
7) Part VI of the Act relates to disputes regarding

elections. Chapter II therein speaks about presentation of

election petitions to the High Court. Section 80 mandates

that no election shall be called in question except by an

election petition presented in accordance with the

provisions of Part VI. Section 81 relates to presentation of

election petitions which reads thus:

“Presentation of petitions.— (1) An election petition

calling in question any election may be presented on one
or more of the grounds specified in sub-section (1) of
section 100 and section 101 to the High Court by any
candidate at such election or any elector within forty-five
days from, but not earlier than the date of election of the
returned candidate or if there are more than one
returned candidate at the election and dates of their
election are different, the later of those two date.

Explanation.- In this sub-section, “elector” means a

person who was entitled to vote at the election to which
the election petition relates, whether he has voted at
such election or not.

(2) Omitted by Act 47 of 1966 with effect from

14.12.1966.

(3) Every election petition shall be accompanied by as

many copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned
in the petition and every such copy shall be attested by
the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy
of the petition.”

5
Sub-section (1) makes it clear that any challenge or

dispute relating to an election may be presented in the

form of an election petition highlighting the grounds

specified in sub-section (1) of Sections 100 and 101. It

further mandates that the election petition is to be filed

only before the High Court having jurisdiction either by

any candidate or any elector within the prescribed time.

As per sub-section (1), election petition is to be filed within

45 days from the date of election of the returned

candidate.

8) Sub-section (1) also makes it clear that the election

can be challenged not only by any candidate of such

election but also even an elector who was entitled to vote

at the election to which the election petition relates

irrespective of the fact that whether he has voted at such

election or not. Sub-section (3) mandates that depending

on the number of respondents mentioned in the petition,

such required copies duly attested by the election

6
petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the

petition shall be furnished.

9) Learned counsel appearing for the appellants

submitted that in the light of the language used in sub-

section (1) there is no compulsion/obligation to present

the election petition by the candidate himself. In other

words, according to him, in view of the fact that the

election petitioner had duly executed a vakalatnama, in

favour of his advocate, he is empowered to present it to

the authorized officer of the Registry. It is further

contended that presentation of the election petition by a

candidate or elector is not mandatory and if it is presented

by his advocate duly authorized, the same is a proper

presentation in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 81 of

the Act. It is also contended that in cases of substantial

compliance and where it is shown that absence was not to

harm the respondent’s case and certain exigencies existed

which made the presence difficult, the court should not

dismiss the petition merely for non-compliance with

7
Section 81 (1) of the Act. On the other hand, learned

counsel appearing for the contesting second respondent-

successful candidate submitted that in view of the

language used in sub-section (1), it is mandatory that the

candidate or elector is to personally present it before the

High Court. In view of the endorsement by the Registrar

(Judicial) stating that the petitioners (appellants herein)

were not present while presenting the election petition, the

impugned order of the High Court dismissing the same

cannot be faulted with.

10) A close look of Section 81 reveals that the two

remaining Sub-sections after the amendment introduced

by Act 47 of 1966, i.e. (1) and (3) deal with two distinct,

but inter-related issues. Sub-section (1) deals with the

necessary requirements of any petition challenging an

election, and Sub-section (3) deals with additional

requirements as to the petition presented.

11) Sub-section (1) has five components, (i) the

qualification of the petitioner, i.e. he/she must be either “a

8
candidate at such election” or an “elector”; (ii) the petition

must be presented ‘by’ the petitioner; (iii) the petition

must be based “on one or more of the grounds specified in

sub-section (1) of section 100 and section 101; (iv) it must

be presented in the High Court; and (v) it must be

presented within 45 days from, but not earlier than the

date of election of the returned candidate, or if there are

more than one returned candidate at the election and

dates of their election are different, the later of those two

dates.

12) Therefore, all these five requirements are extremely

specific and clear. This inference is further strengthened

by Section 86(1) which provides that the “High Court shall

dismiss an election petition which does not comply with

the provisions of Section 81”.

13) This Court, on previous occasions, had the chance to

interpret Section 81(1). It must be noted that the

Representation of the People Act is a special statute, and a

self-contained regime. In K. Venkateswara Rao and Anr.

9
vs. Bekkam Narasimha Reddi and Ors., (1969) 1 SCR

679, a question arose whether 45 days period provided

under Section 81(1) could be condoned through the

application of the Limitation Act? After examining the

relevant provisions of the Act, this Court held:

“…the Limitation Act cannot apply to proceedings

like an election petition inasmuch as the
Representation of the People Act is a complete and
self-contained code which does not admit of the
introduction of the principles or the provisions of
law contained in the Indian Limitation Act.”

14) This has been reiterated in Hukumdev Narain

Yadav vs. Lalit Narain Mishra, (1974) 2 SCC 133,

wherein this Court has again read the requirements under

Section 81 strictly, while stating that the Act is a self-

contained special statute.

15) While interpreting a special statute, which is a self-

contained code, the Court must consider the intention of

the Legislature. The reason for this fidelity towards the

Legislative intent is that the statute has been enacted with

a specific purpose which must be measured from the

10
wording of the statute strictly construed. The preamble

of the Representation of the People Act makes it clear that

for the conduct of elections of the Houses of Parliament or

the Legislature of each State, the qualification and dis-

qualification for membership of those Houses, the corrupt

practice and other offences in connection with such

allegations the Act was enacted by the Parliament. In

spite of existence of adequate provisions in the Code of

Civil Procedure relating to institution of a suit, the present

Act contains elaborate provisions as to disputes regarding

elections. It not only prescribes how election petitions are

to be presented but it also mandates what are the

materials to be accompanied with the election petition,

details regarding parties, contents of the same, relief that

may be claimed in the petition. How trial of election

petitions are to be conducted has been specifically

provided in Chapter III of Part VI. In such circumstances,

we are of the view that the provisions have to be

interpreted as mentioned by the Legislature.

11
16) One can discern the reason why the petition is

required to be presented by the petitioner personally. An

election petition is a serious matter with a variety of

consequences. Since such a petition may lead to the

vitiation of a democratic process, any procedure provided

by an election statute must be read strictly. Therefore, the

Legislature has provided that the petition must be

presented “by” the petitioner himself, so that at the time of

presentation, the High Court may make preliminary

verification which ensure that the petition is neither

frivolous nor vexatious.

17) In this context, earlier decisions of this Court

regarding the interpretation of Section 81(1) must be

understood. In Sheo Sadan Singh vs. Mohan Lal

Gautam, 1969 (1) SCC 408, in paragraph 4, this court

held that:

“The High Court has found as a fact that the

election petition was presented to the registry by an
advocate’s clerk in the immediate presence of the
petitioner. Therefore, in substance though not in
form, it was presented by the petitioner himself.

12
 Hence the requirement of the law was fully
satisfied.”

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that even

though the “form” of the provision was not followed, i.e.

the petition was not presented “by” the petitioner

“personally”, in “substance”, it was followed. It is to be

noted that in Sadan Singh’s case, it is not in dispute that

the petition was presented to the Registry in the

immediate presence of the petitioner. In other words, the

officer authorized by the High Court had an opportunity to

verify him but in the case on hand, admittedly, it was

presented only by the advocate and the petitioners were

not present before the Registrar (Judicial). In view of the

same, the said decision is not helpful to the appellant’s

case. This is because the petitioner therein had, in

substance, complied with the provision as strictly

construed.

18) Learned counsel appearing for the appellants relied

on a decision of the High Court of Rajasthan (Jaipur

13
Bench) in Bhanwar Singh vs. Navrang Singh, AIR 1987

Raj 63. In the case before the learned Single Judge, the

election petition had been presented by one Rajendra

Prasad, Advocate and not by the petitioner himself. It was

argued by learned counsel for the petitioner therein that

election petition had been validly presented under Section

81 (1) of the Act because Section 81 (1) of the Act only

makes a provision as to who can file an election petition

and does not deal with as to who should actually present

it before the Registry. It is further submitted that Section

81 of the Act nowhere provides that the petitioner should

be physically present at the time of presentation of the

election petition. The learned Single Judge, after

adverting to the words - “by”, “presented” concluded that

these words used in Section 81(1) of the Act have to be

given wide meaning and found that election petition filed

through an advocate without the presence of candidate or

elector is valid. We are unable to accept the said

conclusion.

14
19) We have already pointed out that in spite of

provisions in CPC and Evidence Act relating to institution

of suit and recording of evidence etc. this Act provides all

the details starting from the presentation of the election

petition ending with the decision of the High Court. In

such circumstances, it is but proper to interpret the

language used by the Legislature and implement the same

accordingly. The challenge to an election is a serious

matter. The object of presenting an election petition by a

candidate or elector is to ensure genuineness and to

curtail vexatious litigations. If we consider sub-section (1)

along with the other provisions in Chapter II and III, the

object and intent of the Legislature is that this provision

i.e. Section 81(1) is to be strictly adhered to and complied

with.

20) In view of the endorsement by the Registrar (Judicial)

on 07.07.2008 that the election petition was presented

only by an advocate and not by the election petitioners,

we accept the reasoning of the High Court in dismissing

15
the election petition. We further hold that as per sub-

section (1) of Section 81, election petition is to be

presented by any candidate or elector relating to the

election personally to the authorized officer of the High

Court and failure to adhere such course would be contrary

to the said provision and in that event the election petition

is liable to be dismissed on the ground of improper

presentation. Since, the High Court has correctly

dismissed the election petition, the civil appeal fails and

the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.

...…………………………………J.
(D.K. JAIN)

...…………………………………J.
(P. SATHASIVAM)

NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 11, 2009.

16
17