Supreme Court of India
G.V. SREERAMA REDDY AND ANR.versusRETURNING OFFICER AND ORS.
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 1041
- Decided
- 11 August 2009
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- D K JAIN
Holding
Section 81(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 mandates that an election petition be presented personally by the petitioner, and a petition filed solely by an advocate without the petitioner’s presence is a non‑compliant presentation that must be dismissed.
Summary
In the 2008 Bagepalli Legislative Assembly election, the CPM candidate G.V. Sreerama Reddy (appellant) lost after a recount and filed an election petition under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The petition was filed by his advocate without the petitioner’s personal presence, leading the Karnataka High Court to dismiss it on the ground of improper presentation. The Supreme Court examined whether Section 81(1) obliges the petitioner to appear personally at the time of filing. Relying on the special, self‑contained nature of the Act and a strict reading of the word "by", the Court held that personal presentation is mandatory to allow preliminary verification and to prevent frivolous petitions. Earlier decisions interpreting the same provision were cited to support a literal approach, and the distinction from cases where the petitioner was present in substance was noted. Consequently, the Court upheld the High Court’s dismissal and dismissed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Does Section 81(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 require the election petition to be presented personally by the petitioner and not merely through an advocate?
- Is a petition presented without the petitioner’s presence non‑compliant with Section 81(1) and therefore liable to be dismissed under Section 86(1)?
- Should the term "by" in Section 81(1) be given a strict, literal meaning given the special nature of the statute?
Legislation cited
- Representation of the People Act, 1951s. 100, s. 101, s. 80, s. 81, s. 86
Subjects
election petitionRepresentation of the People Actpersonal presentationstatutory interpretationspecial statutehigh court dismissalelectoral dispute
Judgment
" [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 245
G.V. SREERAMA REDDY AND ANR. A
v.
RETURNING OFFICER AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6269 of 2009)
AUGUST 11, 2009
B
[D.K. JAIN AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]
Representation of the People Act, 1951: s. 81 (1) -
Election petitioner has to be present personally at the time
of presentation of election petition. C
Interpretation of statutes: Special statute - Interpretation
of - Held: Statute enacted for specific purpose must be
measured from wordings of statutes and legislative intent
behind it - Representation of the People Act, 1951. D
The question which arose for consideration in the
present appeal is whether the High Court was justified in
upholding the objections of the Registry that there was
no proper presentation of election petition in terms of
section 81(1) of the Representation of the People Act as E
the petitioner was not physically present at the time of
presentation of election petition.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
. F
HELD: 1.1. Sub-section (1) of section 81 of the
Representation of the People Act 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 G
to be filed only before the High Court having jurisdiction
either by any candidate or any elector within the
prescribed time. Sub-section (1) also makes it clear that
245 H
'~
246 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. ~
A 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)
8 mandates that depending on the number of respondents
mentioned in the petition, such required copies duly
attested by the election petitioner under his ow.n
signature to be a true copy of the petition shall be
furnished. [Paras 7 and 8] [252-A-D]
c 1.2. 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
D election, and Sub-section (3) deals with additional
requirements as to the petition presented. Sub-section (1)
has five components, (i) the qualification of the petitioner,
i.e. he/she must be either "a candidate at such election"
or an "elector"; (ii) the petition must be presented 'by' the
E 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
t-
F 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. Therefore, all these
five requirements are extremely specific and clear. This
inference is further strengthened by Section 86(1) which
G provides that the "High Court shall dismiss an election
petition which does not comply with the provisions of
Section 81". [Paras 10 to 12] [253-C-F] ......
K. Venkateswara Rao and Anr. v. Bekkam Narasimha
Reddi and Ors. (1969) 1 SCR 679; Hukumdev Narain Yadav
H
I
G.V. SREERAMA REDDY AND ANR. v. RETURNING 247
OFFICER AND ORS.
v. La/it Narain Mishra (1.974) 2 SCC 133, referred to. A
2. 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
B
a specific purpose which must be measured from the
wording of the statute strictly construed. The preamble
.j( 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
c
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
1
present Act contains elaborate provisions as to disputes D
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 E
election petitions are to be conducted has been
specifically provided in Chapter Ill of Part VI. In such
circumstances, the provisions have to be interpreted as
mentioned by the legislature. [Para 15] (254-D-H; 255-A]
F
3. 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
G
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
H
248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 13 (ADDL.} S.C.R.
A frivolous nor vexatious. [Para 16] [255-A-C]
Shea Sadan Singh v. Mohan Lal Gautam 1969 (1) SCC
408, distinguished.
Bhanwar Singh v. Navrang Singh, AIR 1987 Raj 63,
B disapproved.
4. 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
c 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
0 of presenting an election petition by a candidate or
elector is to ensure genuineness and to curtail vexatious
litigations. The object and intent Of the legislature is that
Section 81 (1) is to be strictly adhered to and complied
with. [Para 19] [256-E-G]
E 5. 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, the reasoning of the High Court in dismissing
the election petition is accepted. As per sub-section (1)
F 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
G to be dismissed on the ground of improper presentation.
[Para 20] [258-H; 259-A-C] .
Case Law Reference:
(1969) 1 SCR 679 referred to Para 13
H
G.V. SREERAMA REDDY AND ANR. v. RETURNING 249
OFFICER AND ORS.
(1974) 2 SCC 133 referred to Para 14 A
1969 (1) sec 408 distinguished Para 17
AIR 1987 Raj 63 disapproved Para 18
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. B
6269 of 2008.
From the Judgment & Order dated 19.09.2008 of the High
Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Election Petition No.4 of
2008.
c
P.R. Ramasesh for the Appellants.
Dr. Sushil Balwada, Sharan Dev Singh Thakur, Murthy Naik
for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by D
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 E
and by which th~ 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 Representation of the People
Act, 1951, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), consequently
dismissed the election petition. F
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 G
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.
H
250 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A 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
B agents of appellant No.1 had left the 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
c 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,
D 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
E 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 impugned order, the learned Single Judge based on the
F 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
G 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.
H
G.V. SREERAMA REDDY AND ANR. v. RETURNING 251
OFFICER AND ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
6. Since the election petition was dismissed at the A
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 B
the same as it was not presented by the candidate or elector?
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
c
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 D
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 E
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
F
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.
G
(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."
H
252 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A 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
B 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. y...
8. Sub-section (1) also makes it clear that the election can
c 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 ~
D mentioned in the petition, such required copies duly attested
by the election petitioner under his own" signature to be a true
copy of the petition shall be furnished.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted
E 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
F 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
G
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 Section 81 (1) of the Act. On the other hand,
learned c.ounsel appearing for the contesting second
H
G.V. SREERAMA REDDY AND ANR. v. RETURNING 253
OFFICER AND ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
respondent- successful candidate submitted that in view of the A
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 B
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-
relat.ed issues. Sub-section (1) deals with the necessary
c
requirements of any petition challenging an election, and Sub-
section (3) deals with additional requirements as to the petition
presented.
i
11. Sub-section (1) has five components, (i) the D
,. qualification of the petitioner, i.e. he/she must be either "a
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 E
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. F
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 ". G
~
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. vs. Bekkam H
254 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A 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? Aft~r examining the relevant provisions of the Act, this
Court held:
B
"... 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."
c
14. This has been reiterated in Hukumdev Narain Yadav
vs. La/it 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. \--
D
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 wording of the
E
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
F 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
G 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 Ill of Part VI. In such
H circumstances, we are of the view that the provisions
G.V. SREERAMA REDDY AND ANR. v. RETURNING 255
OFFICER AND ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
have to be interpreted as mentioned by the Legislature. A
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
B
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.
c
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:
i D
"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. Hence the requirement
E
·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 F
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 G
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.
H
r
256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A 18. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants relied
on a decision of the High Court of Rajasthan (Jaipur 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
B 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 Sbrction 81
(1) of the Act only makes a provision as to who c n file an
election petition and does not deal with as to who should
c 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
D
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.
19. We have already pointed out that in spite of provisions ...
E 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
F 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 Ill, the object and intent
G of the Legislature is that this provision i.e. Section 81 ( 1) is to
be strictly adhered to and complied with.
-1
.s;
20., In view of the endorsement by the Registrar (Judicial)
on 07.07.2008 that the election petition was presented only by
an advocq_te and not by the election petitioners, we accept the
H
'""'\
G.V. SREERAMA REDDY AND ANR. v. RETURNING 257
OFFICER AND ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
reasoning of the High Court in dismissing the election petition. A
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 B
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 di~missed with
"'· no order as to costs.
D.G. Appeals disposed of.
c
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "election petition"Sign in to search