Holding

Schedule 14 and the original video cassette are integral parts of the election petition, and non‑filing renders the petition incomplete, necessitating dismissal under Section 86(1).

Summary

The Supreme Court examined an election petition filed after the 1998 parliamentary election in Sambhal, where Mulayam Singh Yadav was declared elected and Dharampal Yadav challenged the result alleging large‑scale booth capturing, arson and violence. The petition relied on a video cassette, mentioned and verified in Schedule 14, to substantiate the allegations. The High Court held that the video cassette was merely evidence and not part of the petition, allowing the petition to proceed despite the original cassette not being filed. On appeal, the Court held that Schedule 14 and the original video cassette were integral to the petition; their non‑filing meant the petition did not satisfy the completeness requirements of Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Consequently, under Section 86(1), the petition was dismissed as incomplete. The appeals were allowed, the election petition set aside, and costs awarded to the appellant.

Issues considered

Whether Schedule 14 and the original video cassette mentioned therein constitute an integral part of an election petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Whether the failure to file the original video cassette with the petition violates Section 81(3) and mandates dismissal under Section 86(1).

Legislation cited

Representation of the People Act, 1951s. 80, s. 81, s. 83, s. 86

Subjects

election petitionRepresentation of the People ActSection 81Section 86booth capturingvideo cassetteschedule as part of petitioncorrupt practicedismissal for incompleteness

Judgment

MULA YAM SINGH YADA V A
v.
DHARAMPAL Y ADA V AND" ORS.

·JULY 24, 2001

(S.P. BHARUCHA, Y.K. SABHARWAL AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] B

Election Laws:

Representation of the People Act, 1951-Sections 81, 83 and 86-
Election Petition-Allegations of booth capturing, arson and violence- C
Supported by video cassette-Original video cassette mentioned and verified
in one of the schedules to the Election Petition-Non-filling of original video
cassette along with the Election Petition-Effect of-Election Petition is
incomplete without the original video cassette which is an integral part
thereof.
D
In the 1998 election to Parliament; the appellant defeated the
respondent. In an election petition filed in the High Court, respondent
challenged the election of the appellant on the ground that the appellant was
involved in large scale booth capturing, arson and violence. The respondent
filed 15 video cassettes as _Scheduled 14 to the election petition, which were E
copies of the video recordings shown by different television ch~nnels and the·
video recording taken under the orders of the Election Commission.

The appellant filed interim applications before the High Court raising
preliminary objections as to the maintainability of the election petition on the
ground that the respondent has not filed the original video cassette and has F
filed only 15 copies of video cassette along with the election petition. The/
High Court dismissed the application on the ground that the video cassette
cJid not form part of the election petition; that they were filed by way of
evidence in support of the allegations of corrupt practice; and that the non-
filling of the original video cassette could not be described as non-observance
of Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. G
In appeal to this Court, the appellant submitted that the original of the
' video cassette, which was mentioned and verified in Schedule 14 had not been
filed along with the election petition; and that there was no other averment
in the election petition or in the schedules which gave particulars about the H
1103
.
r-
1104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [200 I] 3 S.C.R.

A alleged arson and violence.
The respondent contended that all the Schedules other than Schedule
14 were made part of the election petition and that Schedule 14 merely
mentioned tl?!lt the video cassette was to be used as evidence in support of
the allegations of corrupt practice by the appellant.

Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1.1. Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951
contemplates the presentation of an election petition that is complete and
satisfies the requirements of Section 83. An election petition that is not .
c complete must, having due regard to the imperative mandate of section 86,
be dismissed. (1110-G-H)

1.2. In the instant case the video cassette mentioned and verified in
Schedule 14 is an integral part of the election petition; it should have been
D filed in Court along with copies thereof for service upon the respondents.
Whereas 15 copies were filed for service upon the respondents, the original
video cassette was not filed. The election petition as filed was, therefore, not
complete. (1110-FJ ·1

. •, . 1.3. Ordinarily, what is shown upon the video cassette would have been
E set out in the election petition and then that video cassette could have been
said to be evidence of the allegations made in the election petition. But in
the election petition there is not description of what is sho.wn on the video
cassette except to say that it shows booth capturing, violence and arson. As
to booth capturing, there are particulars contained in the other Schedules
but even in that regard the later paragraphs of the election petition make
F reference to Schedule 14. So far as the allegations ofviolence arid ·arson are
·concerned, there are no particulars in the election petition absent the video
cassette; yet it has not been filed along with the election petition.
· (1110-C-EI

G CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 4396-
4398 of 2000.

From the Judgment and Order dated 9.7.99 of the Allahabad High Court
in A. Nos. 22 and 25 of 1998 in E.P. No. 6of1998.

H Ashok H. Desai, V.A. Mohta, M.L. Verma, K;K. Lahiri, Ejaz Maqbool,
M.S. YADAV v. DHARAMPAL YADAV [BHARUCHA, J.) 1105
Vineet Saran, Pallav Sishodia, B.K. Mishra, Ujjawal K. Jha, Raghvender, Ms. A
Shafali Shukla, Shakil Ahmed Syed, M. Taiyab Khan, Bhim Singh, Imtiaz
.._.i, Ahmad, Ms. Naghma Imtiaz and V.N. Raghupathy for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

BHARUCHA, J. Civil Appeal Nos. 4396-4398/2000 : B

We are concerned in these appeals with the election held on 22nd
February, 1998 for the 9 Sambhal Parliamentary Constituency. The result
thereof was declared on 3rd March, 1998. The appel!ant, Mulayam Singh
Yadav, was declared elected. having secured 3,76,828 votes. His nearest rival C
was the first respondent, Dharampal Yadav, whom he defeated by a margin
of 1,66,662 votes. The first respondent challenged the election of the appellant
by filing an election petition on 17th April, 1998 before the High Court at
Allahabad. Interim applications were filed on behalf of the appellant raising
preliminary objections to the election petition. They were disposed of by the
judgment and order under challenge, whereby the preliminary objections were D
rejected.

The point that we propose to decide, and which will dispose of the
appeals, .relates to Schedule 14 to the election petition. The election petition
has 15 respondents. It contains grounds (A) to (I). In support of these E
grounds, 25 Schedules are filed and are, as a fact, a part of the election
petition, as bound. Except Schedule 14, to which we shall presently refer, the
other Schedules contain documents, such as newspaper reports, pleadings,
circulars, list of polling booths, etc. Each Schedule has a verification clause
and is verified by the first respondent. In respect of each Schedule, except
Schedule 14, the averment mthe election petition re..ads, " ....... marked as F
Schedule ........ to this election petition (giving the appropriate number) which
forms part of the election petition." Schedule 14 is referred to in paragraph
83 of the election petition thus : "But in the case of the present election of
9 Sambhal Parliamentary Constituency, though the polling was 90% and
above upto 250% as stated above, coupled with tht: booth capturing, arson G
and violenct: in large scale and the same having been brought to the public
notice by print and electronic media, which was covered by video photography
by different channels including the Doordarshan, Star T.V. and Zee T.V. and
the videography under the orders of the election commission is attached to
this election petition as Schedule No. 14 in the form of cassette, which is filed
along with this election petition under a seal cover under the signature of the H
1106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001] 3 S.C.R.

A election petitioner and his counsel."

To be certain about what precisely this averment meant, we asked
learned counsel for the first respondent to explain it. HC'. said that the first
respondent or some person on his behalf had recorded what was shown by
television channels and the videograph taken under the orders of the Election
B Commission and that the video cassette of such recordings was mentioned
and verified in Schedule 14. The reproduction of the recording on 15 video
cassettes had been filed along with the election petition for service on the
respondents thereto.

C Schedule 14 is filed in support of grounds A, B and C of the election
petition, which deal with the improper reception of votes at polling booths
which had been captured, affecting the result of the election so far as it
concerned the appellant, non compliance with the Constitution and the law
which also concerned the election in so far as it concerned the appellant. and
ground C states:
D
"because the petitioner is entitled for a declaration as contemplated
under Section IOI(b) of the Representation of Peoples Act 1951, ifthe
votes obtained by the Returned Candidate, namely, the respondent
No.l by corrupt practice of booth capturing and other corrupt practice
are excluded, the petitioner would have obtained the majority of valid
E voters."

Schedule 14 is also referred to in support of groun~s H and I, which deal with
the undue .influence exercised by the appellant ·and its agents by directly
interfering in the free and fair exercise of the electoral right of voters and the
F · capturing of polling booths and centres. In so far as grounds H and I are
concerned, material particulars are also set out in the later Schedules. As
required by the Representation of People Act, 1951, the first respondent
swore an affidavit verifying the allegation of the corrupt practice of booth
capturing made in the various paragraphs of the election petition therein
stated, including paragraph 83, and the Schedules, including Schedule 14.
G '
On 17th April, 1998 the Registrar of the High Court made the following
report in regard to the election petition :

"The petition was presented today by Dharampal Yadav (D.P. Yadav) v~
in person duly identified by Sri Prem Prakash, Advocate. It is also I

H accompanied with security money of Rs. 2,000 (Rupees two thousand (
M.S. YADAV v. DHARft;MPAL YADA V [BHARUCHA, J.) 1107
only) in the form of tender receipt. 31 copies attested by the petitioner A
himself to be true copies and 15 {fifteen) video cassettes."
- •..I..
(Emphasis supplied.)

The trial of the election petition was then assigned to the learned Judge who
has passed the judgment and order under challenge. He, on 13th May, 1998,
directed the issue of notices to the respondents to the election petition and B
said, "It may also be indicated in the notification to be published that the
copy of the cassettes which have been referred to in the election petition are
lying with the Registry of this Court and the respondents, after appearance,
may collect the same from the Registry. The Registrar may keep the cassettes
in proper upkeep to avoid any interference in the versions recorded therein". C
On 26th October, 1998, an application was filed on behalf of the appellant for
a copy of the video cassette referred to in Schedule 14. On 27th October, 1998,
it was handed over to the appellant's counsel in court, and the learned Judge
noted the objection of appellant's counsel that the sealed cover of the copy
of the video cassette bore the signature of the first respondent's advocate
and there was no other signature or mark thereon. The learned Judge then D
directed the Registry to report whether, apart from the 15 copies of the video
cassettes which had been filed along with the election petition, the original
video cassette had been filed. On 16th November, 1998, the Registry of the
High Court responded thus: "In compliance with the Court's order dated
27.10.98 and 9.10.98 it is submitted that office has received only 15 (fifteen) E
Video Cassettes from the Chamber of the Registrar on 17.4.1998. Except 15
Video Cassettes, office has not received any original video cassette with the
i
Election Petition."

In November, 1998 applications were filed on behalf of the appellant
raising preliminary objections to the maintainability of the election petition. F
On 14th December, 1998 the applications were heard. In the judgment and
order thereon, the learned Judge noted the argument on behalf of the appellant
that only 15 copies of the video cassette had been filed by the first respondent
at the time of presentation of the election petitjon and that, therefore, one
video cassette was short. The learned Judge held that although other annexures G
and Schedules were sought to be made part of the election petition, as
averred, there was no such averment in respect of the video cassette in
Schedule 14. He added, "When these cassettes were not part of the election
petition it must be held that the same were filed by way of evidence in support
of allegations of the corrupt practice. The law does not require supply of
copies available to the respondents and any short supply of these materials H
1108 SUPREME COURT()REPORTS [2001] 3 S.C.R .

. A may not be described as non observance of Section 81(3) of the Act."

The principal question, therefore, that we have to decide is whether
Schedule 14 and the video cassette therein referred to is an integral part of
the election petition and whether the failure to file the original thereof in court
along with the election petition attracts Section 81 and, therefore, Section
B 86( 1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Section 80 of this Act states that no election shall be called in question
except by an election petition presented in accordance with the provisions of
Part VI thereof. Section 81 deals with the presentation of election petitions
C and says:

"81. Presentation of petitions.-( 1) An ele~tion 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
D 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 dates].

Explanation-In this sub-section, 'elector' means a person who was
E
entitled to vote at the election to which the election petition relates,
whether he has voted at such election or not."

Sub-section(3) thereof says, that "every election petition shall be accompanied
by as many copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned in the petition
F and every such copy shall be attested by the petitioner under his own
signature to be a true copy of the petition". Section 83 requires that an
election petition shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on
which the petitioner relies, set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice that
the petitioner alleges, including as full a statement as possible of the names
G of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practice and the date
and place of the commission of each such practice, and that it be signed by
the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Civil Procedure
Code. The proviso to Section 83 requires that "where the petitioner alleges
any corrupt practice, the petition shall also be accompanied by an affidavit
in the prescribed form in support of the allegation of such corrupt practice
H and the particulars thereof." Section 86(1) mandates that "the High Court shall
M.S. YADAV v. DHARAMPAL YADAV [BHARUCHA, J.] 1109

dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of A
Section 81 or Section 82 or Section 117."

It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the election
petition deserved dismissal under Section 86(1) because it did not comply
with the requirements of Sections 81 and 83 of the Act in as much as the
original of the video cassette mentioned and verified in Schedule 14 had not B
been filed along with the election petition, although 15 copies thereof had
been filed for service upon the respondents. It was submitted that the video
cassette mentioned and verified in Schedule 14 gave, according to the election
petition, particulars of alleged booth capturing, arson and violence. In fact,
in so far as the alleged arson and violence were concerned, there was no other C
statement in the election petition or in the Schedules which gave any facts
or particulars.

On behalf of the first respondent, it was submitted that all the Schedules
other than Schedule 14 were made part of the election petition. Schedule 14
only mentioned the video cassette that was to be used as evidence in support D
of the allegations of corrupt practice. This was clear from the election petition
itself, wherein, in support of all Schedules other than Schedule 14, it had been
expressly averred that they were a p?rt· of the election petition whereas, in
respect of Schedule 14, what was averred in the election petition was that it
was filed along with the election petition and not that it formed a part thereof. E

Whether or not Schedule 14 is an integral part of the election petition
does not depend on whether or not the draftsman of the election petition has
so averred. It has to be decided objectively, taking into aC'count all relevant
facts and circumstances. Schedule 14 is one of 25 Schedules which are, as
a matter of fact, part of the bound election petition. In respect of each of these F
Schedules, except Schedule 14, it is averred that it is a part of the election
petition. Each of these Schedules, other than Schedule 14, mentions, verifies
and contains some paper or document which can be placed between the
leaves of paper that comprise that Schedule and be bound with "the election
petition. Schedule 14 mentions and verifies a video cassette which cannot be G
placed between two leaves and be bound with the election petition. This is
the e~planation for the difference in the manner in which the averments
relating to Schedule 14 and the other Schedules are made in the election
petition. Clearly, the video cassette mentioned and verified in Schedule 1.4 is
as much an integral part of the election petition as the papers and documents
mentioned and verified in the other Schedules. Further, that the video cassette H
1110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001) 3 S.C.R.

A mentioned and verified in Schedule 14 is a part of the election petition and. . '
was intended to be such is evident from the affidavit of the first respondent
verifying the allegations of corrupt pr~ctice made in the election petition.
Therein, the first respondent has verified the correctness of what is stated in
paragraph 83 of the election petition, which refers to .Schedule 14 and which
B has been quoted above, an~ to Schedule 14 itself. Yet again, that the video
cassette mentioned and verified in Schedule 14 is and was intended to be a
part of the election petition is shown by the fact that 15 video cassettes which
were copies of the video cassette mentioned and verified in Schedule 14 were
filed in the High Court along with the election petition for being served upon . ...r·
the respondents thereto.
c Ordinarily, what is shown upon the video cassette that is mentioned
and verified in Schedule 14 would have been set out in the election petition
and then that video cassette could have been said to be evidence of the
allegations made in the election petition. As this election petition is drafted,
there is no description of what is shown on this video cassette except to say
D . that it shows booth capturing, violence and arson. As to booth capturing,
there are particulars contained in the other Schedules but even in that regard
the later paragraphs of the election petition make reference to Schedule 14 so
that even in regard to booth capturing the p~rticulars shown in the video .f.
cassette mentioned and verified in Schedule 14 are relied upon. So far as the
E allegations of violence and arson are concerned, there are no particulars in
the election petition absent the video cassette mentioned and verified in
Schedule 14.

We are, therefore, satisfied that the video cassette mentioned and verified
in Schedule 14 is an integral part of the election petition and that it _should
F have been filed in Court along with copies thereof for service upon the
respondents to the election petition. Whereas 15 copies thereof were filed for
service upon the respondents, the video cassette itself was not filed. The
election petition as filed was, therefore, not complete.

G Section 81 contemplates the presentation of an election petition that is
complete llll:d satisfies the requirements of Section 83. An election petition
that is not complete must, having due regard to the imperative mandate of
Section 86, be dismissed. The present election petition must, therefore, be
dismissed. ,
.. .
H The appeals are allowed. The judgment and orders under challenge is
M.S. YADAV v. DHARAMPAL YADAV [BHARUCHA, J.] 1111
set aside. The election petition is dismissed. The first respondent shall pay A
_ ,._ to the appellant the costs thereof.

Civil Appeal No.4399 of 2000:

In view of the fact that the election petition has been dismissed by
reason of out order in Civil Appeal Nos.4396-4398 of 2000, this appeal does
not survive for consideration and is dismissed. No order as to costs.

GN. Appeals allowed.