Supreme Court of India
MITHILESH KUMAR PANDEYversusBAIDYANATH YADAV AND ORS .
- Citation
- 1984 INSC 1
- Decided
- 2 January 1984
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- S MURTAZA FAZAL ALI
Holding
A copy of an election petition that contains vital omissions or errors prejudicing the returned candidate is not a "true copy" under Section 81(3) and must be dismissed under Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Summary
In the 1980 Bihar assembly election, M.K. Pandey was declared elected and the defeated Baidyanath filed an election petition alleging corrupt practices. The petition copy served on Pandey contained numerous errors, including omitted and incorrect names of alleged perpetrators. Pandey argued that the mandatory requirement of a "true copy" under Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 was not met, warranting dismissal under Section 86, while the High Court held the mistakes were merely clerical and allowed the petition to proceed. The Supreme Court examined the nature of the errors, held that vital omissions or misstatements that prejudice the returned candidate's defence defeat the requirement of a true copy, and therefore the petition must be dismissed. Consequently, the Court allowed Pandey's appeal and set aside the election petition.
Issues considered
- The copy of an election petition served on the returned candidate must be a "true copy" as mandated by Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
- Whether clerical or typographical errors in the copy constitute substantial compliance with Section 81(3).
- Whether vital omissions or misstatements that prejudice the defence invalidate the copy, invoking dismissal under Section 86 of the Act.
Legislation cited
- Representation of the People Act, 1951s. 81(3), s. 86(1), s. 89(3)
Subjects
Representation of the People ActSection 81(3)Section 86true copyelection petitionvital mistakeselectoral lawdismissal in limine
Judgment
..
A 278 •
MITHILESH KUMAR PANDEY
v.
• BAIDYANATH YADAV AND ORS .
B
. January 2, ~984
[S. MURTAzA FAz~L Ai,r; o. CmNNApPA REDDY AND
. . RS. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.]
. c Repreientation of the People Act, 1951, Sec.tion•81(3~Co11structio11 of ihe
•.provisions of the sectiOn-Copy of ihe election Petition containing· several mistakes
Of Vital -ch'ara~ter, not fo'und i'n the orig'inal-Election petition is not nwintainable and
nJust·be disn1issed. ·
' . .' . ' . . . . .
In the genefal.electioiis held irrJune 1980, the appellant fought .is i. Congress(!)
candidate from Harla~hi Asscmb.ly constituency inBihar•and was·.~eclared elected.
D ·The respondent who was defeated filed an election petition in the. Patna High Court·
!is.ting a. large nwttber of persons through when corrupt practices were- alleged to
have been practised by the appellant. Siflce the copy of the petition, th6ugh attested·.
by the election petitioner under his own_ signature to he a true· copy, contitined
sCveral mistakes which ,\vere of a vCry vitaJ 'c.haracter, the apj)ellant contested the
.. petition atleging· that the mandatory provisions of section 83(3) of. the Representatfon
of People Act not having been cOil).plied vvith at ·an, thC petition should be dismissed
in lin~ine withoµt going into the merits of the Case. Though {he High Court found
E , as ·a faCt. that a Tafge ·number of ·mistakes were there in the copy of the electib-n.
petition su.{,plied to the .appellant. Yef, as they were of a superficial and inSignifiw
·cant nature bordering_ on clerical or tY'pii1g mistakes, on the whole;·there "'.as a
substantial compliance of ihe pro'v~sions of Section 81(3) of the ACt. Hence the
<ippeal ag;i.inst the interl~cutory order.
F
.
l
Allowing the appeal .and disrnis_sing the el.~tioh petition, ihe c01:u{
. HELD : r: 1 A Perstia.1 'of Sections 81(3). and 86 Of the R6presentat_ion
-
of _the People Act reveals ·-that the ·statUtc intended that before an election petition
can· be entertained~ th~ Copy sent tO ·the elected candidate n1ust be a 1-rue copy,
railing which thcrC Would. be ·a serious diSobedience of the mandate Contained in
. s.81(3)
. .
. . which·would.· be fa tar to lhc maintainability of the. said- peition.
' . . (281 FJ '
1 :2 It is now well settled by a large catena Of atithorities of this Court that
thc'clectoral process by Which the verdict of the people has'been given is a sacrosanct ·
bne and ca-nnot be lightly set at naught unle;;s the groun_ds rrlendoned in the Act
for seiting ~side an election a.re held to -be proved. Jn these circumstances, it is
manifest that the _provisions of .s.81(3) Of the act should be. G._onstr~ed to t~e letter
and spirit ·of the law because if the election petitioner docs not give full and Com-
H plete n9tice of the allegations inade against. the returned candidate, he runs the. risk
of his petition being d.is1nissed in limine. (281 G-H]
. '
"
M.K. PANDEY v. BAID~\NATH 279
2 on a careful consideration and i;crutiny of the la\\ on the subject, the A
following principl.es-·are Well established.;~
(l). that where the copy of the eleCtion petition served on the returned
candidate contains .only clefical or typographical mistakes· Which arc
of no consequence, the petition cannot be di·sn1issed straightway under
s..86 of the Act, (283 F]
(2) A true copy means a. copy which is wholly and substantially the same as
B
the original and wher~ there arc insignificant or minimal° 1nistakes, the
c.ourt n;i.ay _not tak~ notice thCreof, [283 G]
•
(3) wh.ere the Cop~ cOn{ains important on1issions or discrepan~ics of a vital
nature, which are likel:Y to cause prejudice t~ the defence of the returned
candidate, it cannot be ~aid that there has been a substantial compliance
o.f t.he provisions of s.81(3) of !he Act, (284 A] c
(4) Pr·ime ·fade, the statute uses the words "true copy'' and the concept of
substantial con1pliance cannot be exten(\Cd too far to include serious
or.vital mistakes \vhich shed the char<icter of a trtie copy so that the copy
furnished.to the returned candidate ·cannot be said· to be. a true copy
within the meaning of s.81(3) of;thc Act, ~nd [284 Bl~
D
(5) As s.81(3) is incant to protect and safeguard the sac·rasanct electoral
p1'ocess so as not the disturb the verdici of the .voters, there is no room for
..
giVing a .Jiberal -or bt-o<i.d ir~terpretation· to the provisions of the said
section. [284 CJ . .
Murarka Radhey Shya111 Rani Kunwr v. Roop Singh Rat/u)J"e & Ors. l1964]
3 SCR ~73; Jagat kishore Prasad Narain Singh v. Rajendra Ku111ar Poddar & Ors.
[1971] t SCR 821; Satya Narain V. Dhuja Rain&. Ors., [1974] 23 SCR 20; Shari/-ud- E
Din v'. Ahd_ul Gpni Loni!, [1980].1 SCR· 1177; M. Karuna~idhi ~tc~ etc. v. H. y. Ha1ide
& O•·s: etc. etc. [1983] 1 SCALE 344 referred to. (284 D-E; 285 G; 286 A; 285 q
.., 3. lfl the instant case, the mistakes iri the copy supplied. to the returned
candidate related to corrupt practice-s, have to be proved to the hilt just like a crimi-
nal charge and any mistake 'vhich contains an ele1nent of vagueness \Vould immcdia:
tely vitiate the election petition and· n1erit its ·disn1issal under' s.86 of the.Act. Among F
- 'tbe 1nany 1nore mistakes given in S~hedule I, the '.few selected items then1selves are
vital and may seriously ·prejudice the ct.fence of the appellant because it. will be
very difficult for him to find out the pe_rsons, named. in the copy supplie.d to hin1At
who are said to have indulged in corrupt practiceS a( his instance. The present
case is a nluch""worse case than Murarka Radhey Sh:va111 Ra111 Kunw;·'s case (supra)
\Vherc onlY a slight difference in the title led this Court to hold that the mistake
was a vital one was a valid one. Further, the omission of names cannot be said G.'
t_o be a_ typing 1nistake but a very vital and serious on Which is sufficient to entail
the dis1nissal of the election petition. [284 D~E; 285 G; 286 ~; 285 C]
•
~ CLVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No. 5307 of 1983
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgmen.t and Order dated :H
the 7th January, 1983 of the Patna High Court in Election Petition
•
•
•
280
..
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984) 2 s.c.R.
A No. 48 of 1980).
S.N. Kacker, L.R. Singh aQd Gopa/ Singh for (he Appellant:
.•
· R.K. -Garg and D:K. Garg for the Respondent.
B. The Judgmentof the Court was delivered hy
. . ·- ' .
.. • FAZAl L AWL!; J, By Orderddated}'fov ember 29, Ijl83hwe h~dd a l!cd.wed ... ·~
t he a,rrea . . e. now procee to give t11e reasons JOT t e sai · 0 r er.
This election appeal is directed agains't an interlocutory. Order
c dated J~nuary 7, 1983 passed by the Patna High Court overruling a .
preliminary objection taken by the appellant (ele'ct~d candidate) that
the election petition of.the respondent (e!ectio1i petitioner) should be
dismissed str.aightaway uiicter the: provisions of s:86 of the Represen-
tation or' the People. Act. l 951-·a< .amended uptodate-(here'nafter
referred to as the 'Act'.).,
D ' .
The·appellant's case is'that in the general election held in· June.
1980 he fought ~s;a Congress (I) ~andid~te 'from Harlakhi Assembly
· c.onsthu_ency in .Bihar in ·\vhich 'he._ was deCJared elected, 'd~fe;itini.
the respondent who filed the. election petition in the. High Courl.
He further subm.itted that the copy of the <;lection 'peti'tion served on
. him contained ·tt Jarge ~)Uinbet ~f)nistakesin respecf of Persohs through
whom corrupt practices were alleged w h.ave been practised by the
appellant c!uring -'the. election.. He . contended that in view of the
very large number of mistakes, which were of a very vital character;
'-i\
.
!he mandatory provisions. of s.81 (3) ·c;r the Act were not complied
·.with at' all,' which. infirmly by itself woulil be sufficient to dismi~s
F
. the election
case.
/
.· petition
. .
in /imine without going into . the merits of the
-~
. ' The stand taken by the respondent ~~·s tbat the I].listakes were.
· undoubiedly' .there ·but they
\
were of
. a minor and significant
. nature
and did not affect his case on merit.
G
a
The 1earned Judge .of the Hi,gh Court found as a fact that large · .
n\Jmber of mistakes were there in the copy of the election petition ·
'supplied to i\1e ·appellantbut as they were ofa superficial and i;1signi-
ficant nature bordering on clerical or .typing.mistakes, on the whole
H there was a· substantial compliance of .the .provisions of s.81(3)' of.
the Act. · The learned Jucig:' has entered into a detailed discussion. of
•
•
i..
M-~· PANDEY"· DAIDYANATH (Faza/ Ali, J.j 281
the various d~cisions of this Court and also of High ·courts and has A
,correctly held that the provisions .of s.81(3) are mandatory and if the
court finds that. they have not been cornpl\ed with ii has no alte111ative
bu\ to dismiss· the. election petition .straightaway, Unfortunately,
· however, in the process of applying the principles laid ·d°'vn by this
Court he bas completely· glossed over the nature of ilie 1:nistakes by
describing them ·as merely cleri~al or typing ones. On· a perusal. of B
the aforcs~id mistakes (list~d at pp. 64-65 of tne"rarerbook) they
.do not appear)o b<; so. ,Section 81(3) of-the Act run' <\rns:
"~l. Presentafio"n of petitions ,.
(3) Every election petition shall be acco~panied by. c
as many .copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned
in th~ ·petition, and every such copy shall be attested 'by tb.e
pe1;itioner under his O\v1r signature to be·.a true·copy of the
Petition.~.' .
The cunsequen.ce of nOn-compliance of thi.s. section l12s. been ·D
mentio11ed in s.86(1) which may be ext~acfrd thus '
"86.. Tfia/ of' c!e"cti"pn petitions..
(!). Tl1e High Court shall dismiss a1{ election petition
which does not compJy.with"the prov'isions of sccticn 81 er E
• section 82 o'r sectiCn 117.' . .
A pe1"usal of.the above reveals that the statute intended that"
before an election peiition can be entertai1icd; the copy· sent 'to if.e
elected candidate niµst be a true copy, failing which there would be
a serious disobedience of the m~·ndate contained in s.81(3) whkh F
• -..
would be fatal_ to the maintainability of the said petition.
\
It is now .\vc!I settled bv. a large catepa of aut.bc~it.ics -cf 1l1.is
Co.uri that the elec!oral proc~ss by. ~vhcih th<"vcrdici of lhc .people
has been given is a s·acrosanct en~ and cai1·not .1--:c:li_ghtly H~t at n<1ught
unless ~he gi-Ounds 1nentioned ·in the Act for setting aside an election G
a1"e held to be'provcd. Jn these circumstaHcs. it is ffanifrct :11oat th
provisions of s.81'(3) of the Act should be construed to the letter and
spirit of the law because if the election petitioner d~es not give full..
·and coo1plcte 'notice of the aflegation.s made against the return(d .
candidate. he runs the . risk of hi~. pctit(cn, _being disrnis~(d in . ·H
lfmine. ,
282 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [1984] 2 s;c.R.
A ·hi· the instant cas·e, it is the.a.dmitted case of the parties that the
mistakes in the copy supplied to the. appellant rel.~ted to corrupt• ~
practices indulged in by him through various persons who liave been
named at pages 64-65 of the Paperbook. In Murarkd Radhey Shylim
Ram Kumar v. Roop Singh Rathore & Ors.<ll this Court made the
. followit~g obs~rvations :--
B
•
"Having'rcgard to the prov1s<0ns of Part VI.of the
Act we are of the.viewthat the word "copy" does not mean
an absolutely exaot copy. Tt means a .copy so true that
· nobody ca.n by any possibility.misunderstand it.. The test
whether. the· copy is a true one is whether any vari-
c tion frora· the original_ is ·calculated to mislead an ordinary·
person.''
• ..
In other, words, this Court merely mrant to indicaie that where
the variation is- so minin1al and ins~gnificant that it is incapable of
misleading any person as to the true purport of the allegation, it
would be a substantial complia1ice of. the provisions of s.81 (3) cf
the Act.. The High Court has largely relied on the ratio of this parti-
cular case.
There can be no dispute. regarding the· principle laid down by
this Court but the main difficulty.arises when· we approach the facts
E
of a particular case in. order to find .out whether the copy .supplied
to the returned candid~te is really a true copy or not •
·..-f
Tn Jagat Kio}wre Prasad Narain Singh v. Rajendra Kumar Poddar '
& Ors. 121 the same principle was laid down. In this case, the mistake·
F was that in the election petition it was stated that rnrney was offered
·to one Jctba Kisku by Munshi Hansda but in the 'opv served on the y
returned candidate instead of M).Jnshi Hansda the name of Paul
Hansda was mentioned. Apparently, the mistake was a verbal one
but this court held that it was sufficient· to prejudice the defence and ·
accordingly came to the conclusion that the petition was liable to
G be dismissed under s.86 of the Act.
·We shall presently show that in the instant case the mistak.es
were of a greater nature than those with which this Coµrt was dealing 1--
H (I) (1964] 3 S.C.R. 573.
(2) [1971] I S.C.R. 821. .
'.
..
.
M.K. PANDEY l'. BAJDYANATH
.
•
(Faza/
, ,4/i, J.) 283 . .
with in the afore~id ~ase. Jn Satya'Nar~in v, Dhuja Ram & Ol's.<1 1 A
this Court clearly pointed out that where the first.part of s.81(3) was
• -f. n.ot complied with . the provision being a peremptory one, total nqnc,
compliance with the same would. entail dismissal of the election peti-
tio'n under s.86 .of the Act. In a later case in' Shari[-ud-Din v. Abdul
Gani Lonei2> this Court observed thus ·
B
"It· .is true that section 89(3) of ·the Act is purei'y
procedural in character and that ordinarily prccedimil Jaw·
• should not be ·given that primacy by cuurts a~ would defeat
the ends of justice, But if a Jaw even though it may be pro-
cedural in character insists that an act must be done in a
·particular mam,er .and further provides that certain con-
sequences should follow'ifthe act is not done.in that manner,
.courts have no.option
~ . but to enforce the law .
as. it is."
In a la(<:st decision of the Court in M. Karunanidhi etc. etc. v.- H.
V. Hrmde & Ors. etc. etc.,<3> the following observations were mad!':
..
"It .is obvious that the photograph was a part of the \ D
~verment contained in paragraph l S(b). Jn the absence ·
of the photograph the averment contained in paragraph
18(b) ·,vould be incomplete. The photograph referred to •
in paragraph 18(b) was therefore ai1 integral part of the
election petition. It follows that there was total non-ccim-
plia'nce \vith the requirements of sub-s.(3) of s.81 ~f the Act
E.
by failure to. serve the appellant with a copy of the elcctidn
·petition."· · ·
'
On a careful consideration and scrutiuy of the Jaw on the subject,
· the following principles are wen established :· - ' . ·.· .
I) that where the copy of the election petition. served on F
the returned candidate conta\ns only clerical or typo-
graphical mistakes whiCh are of no. comcquence, the
petition cannot be ·dismissed straightaway under s.86 ·of
the Act,·
2) A true copy _means a copy which is wholly and substan- G
tially the same as the original and where there are insigni-
ficant or minimal' mistakes, the court may· not take
notice thereof,
...
(1)' [1974] 3 S.C.R. 20. (2) [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1177. H
(3) [1983) I SCALE 344.
·.
284
3)
-·
' SUPREME COURT REPORTS
•
(1984] 2 $.C.R.
where the, copf contains importai1t omissions or dis-
"
crepancies of a vital nature,· which are likeiy to. cause ·
prejudice 'to the defence of the returned candidate;·
it cannotbe said that there has been a. s~bstantial com-
. pliance of the provisions ofs.81(3) of.the ~ct. ~ .
B ~ 4) Pri~1a facje, the ~tatute .use·s· the. words. "true copy"
. and the concept of'substai1tial compliance cannot be
extended tdo .far to. include se1ious or vital itiisiakcs
which :shed the character of a _true copy so that the copy .'
.·~
furnished to the returned candidate cannot be said to be a
5)
. . . ·...
. .
.
.
\
..
true copy wiibin the meaning of s. 81(3) of ihe Aci,. ;nd
'
- .
As s.81(3) is meant to pr<ltect and safeguard the
.
Bacrosanct. electoral process so as not to disturb the
verdict of the .voters, there is no. room ,for giving a
liberal or broad interpretation to the· provisions of the
.s~id secti.on. ,
D
I We might mention here• that in the instant case the mistakes
.. in the copy· supplied .to the returned candidate related to corrupt
practices' which, as has beert held by this Court in. a large number
of cases, have to be proved to the hili just like a crii11inal charge and
any mistake which co.ntains an eleme1it of vagueness would imme-
.E diately vitiate· the election petition and merit its dismissal. under. s.86
of the Ac( . .
. A . . .
In the view that. we lake, it.is not necessary for us t<i wade through
a detailed dis<;ussion of the mistakes because a few mistakes pointed
out by the Judge himself clearly reveal that they were .of a very vital
and material nature so as to mislead the returned .. candidat~ . and
prejudice him. in his defence. Schedule I to the election ·petition
contained the.· list of ·persons through whon1 the corrupt practices were
alleged to have been committed, An analysis of these mistakes
may be pla~d in three cafego:fie~(l) where there is complete omission
· of some ·names which have .been mentioned in the· election· petition
G but ·riot in. the copy'\upplie>[ to the returned candidate, (2) giving
. absolutely .wrong names whic11 are bound to mislead the appellant .
in his 'defence as· the persons bearing the wron·g names could not
be t.raced out, and (3) some names given in the petition appear to be.
. males but i(l the copy given to the appellant they ~ppear to be fe~ales_.
H
Coming to the first category, a few ex~mples will suffice .to
M.K. PANDEY v. BAI~YANATH (Fazal Ali, i.) · Q85
• ~- .'
illustrate· our point · A
SI. No. in .Name in the Name in the
Schedule I orig;nal petitfon copy
17 · · Yogendra Jha '. Omitted
37 Bufa.ri
.·
Devi
ft.
Omitted B
I.
188 Bal Bhogia Omitted
445 Ra1n<leo Pa'swan ·Omitted·
486 .. Jugeshwari Devi Omitted
The omission ·of names cannot· be said to be a typing misiake
but a very vital and serious one which is sufficient to entail the dismissal c
of the· election petition. Under the seco~d categoy (.giving wrong
.names), the following
. names
.
may:
.
be mentioned · .
D.
E
.F
G
· . There are many more· mistakes given in schedule I but we have
se!Ccted only those which are vitaL and may seriously prejudice the
.'defence of the appellant ·because it will be very difficult for hini to find
" out the persons,' named in the copy supplied to him, who are said to
have indulged in· corrupt pradices at his .instance .. H
·-
1~ . . . - .
Thus, on ,[n oyerall consiiierntion of the facts and circumstances ..
·-
' ..
A
.286
..
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984] 2 s.c.R.
of this case, we. are unable to agree with. the High Court that the
'mistakes in the copy were either verbal, typographical 6r clerical..
The present case appears to be a much worse case than· Murarka ·
Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar,'s case (supra) where only a· slight.difference
jn the title led this Co.urt to hold that' the mistake was a vital one .
. .I
We are, therefore, of the opinioq.that the High Court. committed
· a· serious error of law in holding that there had been a substantial
compliance of the provisions of' s.81(3) of the Act so a~ to exC!ude
the. applica'tion of s.86 of the Act.
•
c For. the reasons given above, we allow the appeal and dismiss
the election r.etitio1\ filed in the High C~urt but in the .circumstances
without any order as to costs. As a result of our judgment, nothin.g
now survive"s iii the High Court. ·
S.R.
..
Appeal a/!'Oived.
•
•
•
.. . .
.,
..
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Representation of the People Act"Sign in to search