Holding

Section 81(3) requires service only of the election petition itself, not of accompanying schedules or documents, so the petition cannot be dismissed under Section 86.

Summary

The respondent filed an election petition alleging corrupt practices by the returned candidate. The returned candidate sought dismissal of the petition in limine under Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, claiming the petition violated Section 81(3) because copies of documents and schedules were not served on him. The High Court rejected this application. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the service requirement of Section 81(3) extends to schedules and annexures. The Court held that the statute only mandates service of the election petition itself, with the required number of copies, and that schedules, while signed and verified, are not required to be served as they can be inspected in court. Consequently, the petition was not liable to be dismissed under Section 86. The Special Leave Petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether failure to serve copies of documents and schedules to the respondent violates Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, thereby rendering the election petition dismissible in limine under Section 86.

Legislation cited

Representation of the People Act, 1951s. 81, s. 82, s. 83, s. 86

Subjects

election petitioncorrupt practicesSection 81Section 86service of documentsRepresentation of the People Actlimine dismissal

Judgment

894

A A. MADAN MOHAN
v..

KALA VAKUNTA CHANDRASEKHARA

February 14, 1984
B
(S. MURT AZA FAZAL ALI, A. VARADARAJAN AND
RANGANATH MISRA, JJ.]
Representation of the Peo_ple A~t, 1951;
·Sections 81, 82 and 86-Schedu/es and'annexure~; to election petition 1101
·served on the opposite party-Fai/ure-Wheiher renders the petition liable to be
c rejected in llmine.

The respondent fi)ed an election petition in the High Court allegin&
that th~ returned candidate (petitioner herein) had committed corrupt prac·
tices which rendered his election void. The returned candidate made an
application stating that the respondent had committed breach of the manda·
D tor.y provisions of section 81 (3) in that with the copy of the election petition
served on him, copies of documents and schedules which formed an integral
part of the election petition, had not been enclosed and that for this reason
the election petition was liable to be dismissed in liminc unJer section 86.
The High Court dismissed his application. In the special leave petition the
returned candidate has urged the same argument advanced by him before the
High Court.
E ,
Dismissing the pciition,

HELD : There is no requirement of law that the documents or sche-
dules to the election petition should also be served on the candidate because if
they were filed in Court il is always open;to the returned candidate to inspect
them and find out the allegations made· in the petition. Documents or sche·
F dules do~not forn1 an integral part of the election petition. [897E-F]
In the instant case all that was necessa.ry to be done by the election
petitioner had been done. The election petition was accompanied by as many
copies as there were responden:s. It was duly verified and copies thereof
were accompanied by necessary schedµlcs containing the details of corrupt
practices and the schedules were also signed by the pet!tioner. [897£..F]
G
A. id. MOHAN v. KALAVAKUNTA (Fazal Ali, J.)
A
Sahodrabai Rat v. Ram Singh Aharwar, [1968. 3 SCR and M. V. Hamle,
[1983) 2 sec 473, held inapplicable.

T CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition
(Civil) No. 11868 of 1983.
From the Judgment and Order dated the 16th July, 1983 of B
the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Application No. 53 of 83.

So/i J. . Sorabjce, V.R. Reddy; K. Rajendra Chowdhary and
K. Shivraj Chowdhary for the Petitioner.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c
FAzAL ALI, J: .This petition for special leav~ is directed
against an interlocutory Order dated July 16, 1983 of the Andhra
·Pradesh High Court rejecting the application of the petitioner for
dismissing the election petition of the respondent in limine under D
s. 86 of the Repsesentaiion of the People Act (hereinafter referred
to as the 'Act'.)

The petition arises out. of an election to the Siddipets
Assembly Constituency in Andhra Pradesh which took place on
January 5, 1983. The petitioner was declared elected to the said E
Assembly. The respondent filed an election petition in the High
Court alleging certain corrupt practices.

-· The short point for consideration before us is as to" whether
or not the election petition was liable to be dismissed in /imine
under s. 86 of the Act as the copies of the documents and sche·
dules, which formed an integral part of the election petition, were
F

not supplied to the petitioner which amounted to a clear breach
of the mandatory provisions contained in s. 81 (3) of the Act.

· The High Court after hearing both the parties dismissed the
application of the petitioner for throwing out the election petition G
of the respondent in /imine We have· heard counsel for the
parties at. length and it seems to us that the matter is no longer
res integra and is covered by a decision of this Court is Sahodrabai
Rai v. Ram Singh Aharwar (') to which we shall refer hereafter.
-------- H
(!) (1968) 3 s.c.R. 13.
896 SUPREME COURT R!PORTS it984) 2. S.C.R.
A On the findings of the High Court three facts are clearly
proved:
(a) that when the election petition was filed, it was accom-
panied by as many copies as were.the respondents,
(b) that the election petition was duly verified and the copies.
B thereof were accompanied by the necessary schedules
containing the details of corrupt practices, and
(c) that the schedules or the annexures to the petition were
also .signed by the election petitioner (respondent).

c The only complaint of the petitioner was that the copy of
the election petition served on him was not accompanied by copies
of the schedules and hence the1e was a clear breach of the provi-
sions of s. 81 (3) of the Act. Section 81(3) may be extracted
thus :

D "81. Presentation of petitions-

(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 b ,.,the
E petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of
the petition."

An. analysis of the above reveals-

(a) that the petition should be accompanied by as many
F copies as there are respondents, ·

(b) that every such copy should be attested by the peti-
tioner under his own signature to be a true copy of
the petition.
It is not disputed in this case that both these conditions were
G
fully satisfied.
Section 83 of the Act contains four requirements, viz.,

(a) that the ·election petition shall contain a concise state-
ment of the material facts relied upon by the petitioner,
H {b) that the petitioner ,should set forth the full particulars
of the corrupt practices alleged,
A. M. MOHAN v. ltALAVAIWNTA (Faza/ Ali, J.) 897

(c) that the petition should be sigEed by the petitioner and A
verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil
Procedure and where a corrupt practice is alleged the
petition should also be accompanied by an affidavit
in the prescribed form, giving the particulars of the
corrupt practice, and
B
(d) any schedule or annexure· to the petition should also
be signed and verified by the petitioner.

These conditions have also been fulfilled in the present case.

The counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that as
c
the schedules and other documents formed .an integral part _of the
.> petition, the same should have been served on the petitioner
(respondent in the. High Court) before it could be said that the
pr_ovisions of ss. 81 and 82 of the Act had been complied with.
It was further argued that in the absence of such a compliance, D
the petition was liable to be reject~d in limine under s. 86 of the
Act. We are, however, unable to ai:;ree with this contention
which does not at all flow from the plain and simple requirements
of ss. 81 and 82. As indicated above, all that was necessary was
done in this case and there was no requirement that the docu-
ments or the schedules .should also have been served on the E
petitioner because if they were flied in the Court it was always

• open to the petitioner to inspect them and find out the allegations
made in the petition. We are unable to hold that the documents
or the schedules formed an integral part of the petition.

An identical question came up for consideration before this F
Court in Sahodrabai's case (supra) where while repelling a similar
argument the following observations were made :

"The only provi~ion to which our attention has been
drawn is sub-s. (3) of s. 81 and sub-s. (2) of s. 83. The
first provides that every election petition shall be accom- G
pained by as many copies thereof as there are respondents
mentioned in the petition and that every such copy _shall ·be
an authenticated true copy. The words used here are only
"the election petition." There is no mention of any docu-
ment acc_ompanying the election petition ......... Assistance is
however taken from the provisions of sub-s. (2) of s. 83 H
which provides that any schedule or any annexure to the
898 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1984] 2 S.C.R.

A petition shall also be signed by the petitioner· and verified
in the same manner as the, petition. It is contended that
since the pamphlet was an annexure to the petition it was
not only necessary to sign and verify it, but that it should
have been treated as a part of the election petition itself and
a copy served upon the respondents. In this way, non-
B compliance with the provisions of s. 86 (I) is. made out. In
·our opinion, this is too strict a reading of the provisions.
We have already pointed out that s. 8 I (3) speaks only of
the election petition ............ Even if this be not the case, we
are quite clear that sub-s. (2) of s. 83 has reference not to a
document which is proauced as evidence of the averments
c
of the election petition but to avcrments of the election
petition which are put, not in the election petition but in·
the accompanying schedules or annexures.

But what we have said here does not apply to docu-
D ments which are merely evidence in the case but which for
reasons of clarity and to lend force to the petition are not
kept back but produced or filed .)Vith the election petitions.
They are in no sense an integ~al part of the averments of
the. petition but are only .evidence of those averments and in
E proof thereof. The pamphlet therefore must be treated as
a ·,document and not as a part of the election petition in so
-far as averments are concerned ........ .It would lie stretching
the words of sub-s. (2) of s. 83 too far to think that every
· document produced as evidence in the election petition be- •
comes a part of the election petition proper."
F . "''
It is a well settled principle of interpretation of statute that
wherever a statute contains stringent provisions they must be lite-
J
rally and strictly construed so as to promote the object of the Act.
As extracted above, this Court clearly held that if the arguments
of the appellant (in that case) were to be accepted, it would be
G stretching and straining the language of ss. 81 and 82 and we are
in complete agreement with the view taken by this Court which has
dedded the issue once for all.

The learned counsel relied on a latter· decision of this Court
iii the case of M. Karunanidhi v. H. V. Hande(1 ) where a Divison
H
(1) [1983) 2 s.c.c. 473,
A. M. MOHAN v. KALAVAKUNTA (Fazal Ali, J.) 899

Bench while considering a similar question made the following A
observations :

"The Preliminary issue and the appeal turn on a short
point of construction. The question that arises is whether
the words "copies thereof" in sub-section (3) of Section 81
B
comprehend the ' election petition proper or do they also
include a schedule or annexure in terms of sub-section (2) of
Section 83 or merely a document only in proof of the allega-
tions in paragraph 18 (b) must. turn on a construction of
sub-section (3) of Section 81 read with sub-section, (2) of
Section 83. It now appears to be well set.tied by Sahodrabai' s c
case, (1968 (3) SCR 13) that s111;::secti_on (2) of section 83
applies only to a schedule or annexure which is an integral
part of the election petition and Iiot to a document which
·is produced as evidence of the averments of the election
petition..'' . . ,
D
-~
This decision in no way departs from the ratio laid down in
Sahodrabai's case (supra). The aforesaid case however, rested on
the ground that the document (pamphlet) was expressly referred
"" . to in the election petition· and thus became an integral part of the
same and ought to have been served on the respondent. It is,
E
therefore, manifest that the facts of the case cited above a~e clearly
distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Furthermore,
the decision in M. Karunanidhi's case (supra) has noticed the pre-
vious decision and has fully endorsed. the same.

For these reasons, therefore, we are clearly of the opinion that F
the view taken by the High Court was correct and no interference
is called for with the judgment of the High Court. As the matter
was clearly concluded by authorities of this Court we did not think
it necessary to grant special leave and hearing the parties at length
we disposed of and dismiss the petition in · tetms of the aforesaid
observations. ·· G

P.B.R. Petition dismissed.

I