Holding

Non‑compliance with the mandatory provision of Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, cannot be cured by amendment or benefit of doubt and mandates dismissal of the election petition under Section 86.

Summary

The appellants challenged the election petitions filed against them on the ground that the copies served on them were not attested as true and exact copies as required by Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and therefore the petitions should be dismissed in limine under Section 86. The High Court had held that because the petitioner had also filed a correct set of copies, the appellants could have chosen the correct copy and invoked the doctrine of benefit of doubt to cure the defect. The Supreme Court examined the evidence and found that the appellants did not receive a correct copy and that the petitioner could not rely on the existence of another correct set. It held that Section 81(3) is a peremptory provision and non‑compliance cannot be remedied by amendment or by the benefit‑of‑doubt doctrine. Consequently, the election petitions were dismissed under Section 86 and the appeals were allowed, setting aside the High Court judgments.

Issues considered

Whether non‑compliance with the mandatory requirement of Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, warrants dismissal of an election petition under Section 86.
Whether an amendment to an election petition after filing can cure a defect in the copies served, thereby circumventing Section 81(3).
Whether the doctrine of benefit of doubt can be invoked to overlook a breach of the mandatory copy‑attestation requirement.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedures. 537
Representation of the People Act, 1951s. 81(3), s. 86

Subjects

Election petitionTrue and exact copySection 81(3)Section 86Amendment of petitionBenefit of doubt doctrineProcedural complianceDismissal in limine

Judgment

22 RAJ.ENDRA SINGH & ORS. ETC.
r.
A v.
SMT. USHA RANI & ORS. ETC.

February 27, 1984

[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, A•. VARADARAJAN AND
ii ' ,.
RANGANATH MISRA, JJ,]

Representaiion,ofthe People Act 1951, ~ections 81(3) and 86.

E{ection Petition-Sen'ice of true o"nd exact copy of election petition on res-
c pondents-Duty of election petitioner-Consequences of failure _of-Dismissal in
limini of election petition .
•
Amendment
, of
. election petitioll-W!tether pern1issible.

Tlie respondent fi1e,d an Election Petition for setting asipc the election of
the appellant. ta the State Legislative Assembly. The appellan_t filed a petition
D for rejection of the said ·Election Petition in lirnine under Sectio.n 86 of the
Representcltion of the People Act1 1951 on the_ ground that the copy of tiie
petition' served o~ him was neither attested to be a true copy nor a correct copy
of the original petition, as·conte"n1plated by the provisions conla-ined in section
. 81(3). The case of the respondent-election. peti_tidner·was· that two sets of copies
were filed, one set being correct as require.d . by the Act and the other set inc01 •
rect containini vital om.issions and mistakes, the appellant having got a correct
E copy as r~quired by section 81(3) there was compliance with the requirement of
. the sectjon.

The High Collrt held that as. the respondent had filed correct coPies, the
proVisioris of section 81 (3) \Vere not violated and it was for the appellant to have·
chosen the cofrect copy fron1 the two sets and invoked the doCtrine of benefit
of-doubt "in order to cure the non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of
F section 81(3), and rejected the applii;ation to dismiss the Election Petition.

Jn the connected appeals, the lsJ Re~ponderrt had filed separate Election
Petitions fcir setting aside the election of the appellants to the .Rajya Sabha.
When the said petitions came up before the High Court for hearing an applica-
ti~n was made by the respondent. for amendment of the Original petition by
G insertion of page 17 which was aliowed. The 'appellants filed .petitions before
the Election judge for rejecting the Election Petitiori on th~ ground that no
amendment could be allo;wed ·which \\'ould have. the effect of defeating or
bypassing th'e provisions ~f section 81(3). of .the Act, and that the original petition
served on the appellants did not contain page 17 and hence was not the ·cdrrect
and exact copy of the election petition.

H
.
The High
.'
Court rejected ., the Election P~tition.
. the application to dismiss
Allowing the Appeals.
AAJBNDM SiNGH v. OSHA R.\Ni 23

HELD; t. The mandate contained in section 81(3) is clear and specific and A'
requires that every copy of the.election petition must be a true and· exact copy of
the petition. The consequences of this mandatory provison ~annot- be got over
by praying for an amendment of t~e election petition be~use that ':ould defeat
the very object and purpose of sect10n 81(3), [28 F, 29 BJ

Jn the instant cases,. the judgment of the High Court are· set aside, and the
election petitions dismissed ,in Ii mine 1:1nder s_ection 8<? of the Act. (30 DJ B

Sharif-ud-Din v, Abdul Gani Lone, [1980] 1 SCR1177; referred to,

2, Section 81 (3) an~,86 of the A1>t do not con~mplate the ·filing of incor-
rect coPies and if an election petitioner disregards the mandate contained in
~ection 81(3).by filing incorrect copies, he takes the risk of the petition being C
dismissed in limine under section-86. It is no part of the duty of the resp_ondent
to wade thfough the· entire record in o+der to fiod out which is the correct copy.
If out of the copies ftled,~the respondent's copy fs fouJid to ba an incorrect one,
it amounts to n6n-compliance of the provisions' of section 81(3) which is suffi-
ciebt to entail a dismissal of the election petition at the behest of the respondent.
" [27B;CJ
J.)
3. If an election petitioner files a number of copies, some of . which may
be correct and some -may be incorrect, it is his duty to see that the copy
~rved On the respondent is a correct one.' [27 A}

In the instant ~e, it has D.ot been proved _by the responde_p.t that correct
copies of.the Clection petition had·been filed or, that the appellant got the Cor.. . E
rect copy and not the incorrect one, in the face of the clear and categorical
assertion by him that he did not r~ceive the correct copy. [27 FJ

4, The mandate contained in Section 81(3) cannot be equated withs, 537
of the Code of Criminal Ptocedure which _m_akes certain omissions a! ·a curable
irregularify'. No. such concept can be imported into the election law because
the object of the law is that the electoral process should not be set at naught and F
an elected candidate should not be thrown out unless the grounds mentioned in
the Act arc clearly and fully proved, [27 DJ' .

5. Parliament ill its wisdom has not made any atte.mpt to interfere with
the premptive and mandatory provisions of section 81 (3) resulting in the
consequence of dismissa,l of the p_etitfon under section· 86 despite the observa·
tions in Satya Narain. v. Dhija Ram & Ors. [1974] 3 SCR 20, [30 CJ G

CIVIL APPBl.L.\TB JIJR!SDICTION Civil Appeal No. 3702 (NCB)
of 1982. ,
-1
Appeal by Special leave frotn the judgment and Order dated
the 2nd August, 1983 of the Allahabad High Court'in Election Peti·
tion No. 28 of 1980.
~4. SUPREME COURT Rlil'ORts (I 984 J 3 s.c:R..

With

. Civil Appeal No. 9 of )983

. Appeal by Special leave. from the Judgment and Order dated
B the 15th October)'Ist December, 1982 of the Allahabad High Court •
in ·Election Petition No. I of1982.
•
And
•
Civil Aweal No. 10 of 1983

· Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated.
the 15th October, 1982 and !st December, 1982 of the. Allahabad
High Court in Election Petition No: 1 of 1982 ·
l
•
J>- S. N. Kacker, R.L. Srivastava, Rajesh and J!. K. Verma for the
Appellants in CA. No. 3702, of 1982,

Appellant in person in CA. No. 10 of 1983.

M.C. Bha11dare and V.K. Verma for the Appellant in CA.
1E 9/83.

Yogeshwar Prasad, Ms. R. Chhabra; Sujat Ullah hnd K. k.
Gupta for'the Respondents.

The Judgment'of the Court was delivered by

FAZAL ALI, J. As these appeals involve. common points of
law, we propose to decide them by one judgment. •

Civil Appeal No. 3702 of 1982

. This appeal arises out of. election to '375-Iglas Assembly
Constituency, Aligarh to the Uttar Pradesh LegisliLtiVe Assemb\y'
which was held on May 28, 1980 and the result.of which was decfirre'd
on _June 1, 1980, in which the appellan_t was declared elected. Respon-
H dent No: I, Snit:· Usha:.kani had:a1so· contest¢' the· n~ove men-
tiOned election but :Was defeil.ted. Aggrieved by the resulf of-th~
, aforesaid election,' Smt. Usha Rani filed an election petition· oil.
.
RAfENDRA ~INGH v. USHA RaNI IFazai Ali, J.) 25
July 15, 1980, at. the residence of the Registrar of the Allahabad A
Hlgh'. Court. Thereafter, on September 24, · 1981, the appellant filed
a petition before the High Court for rejection of the election petition
• filed by the respondent, on the ground that the copy of the petition
' . served on him was neither attested to be d true copy nor a corect

., . copy of the origii:tal :petition, as contemplated by the provis.ions
contained in s. 81 (3) Of the Representation of the People Act (here- · B
inafter referred· to as the 'Act') and hence the election petition should
be rejected in limine under s. 86 of the Act. Snb-s. (3) of s. 81 niay
be extracted thus ;

"SJ. Presentation of petitions-
c
xx xx xx •
. ' (3) Every election petition shall. be accompanied by as
many copies thereof as there are respondents nientioned in
. the petition, and every such copy shall be attested by the.
petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of D
the petiiton.'' ·

An analysis of this sub-section would reveal that every election
p"etition should be accompanied by as many copies as there
are respondents and that every copy should be attested by the E
~etitioner under his own signa:ture. · If theke reqUirements are not
f'ollowed stdctly and literally, it would result in dismissal or the
~ection petition without any trial as provided by s. 86 of the Act. •
.
In the instant case, the main point raised by the appellant was
tltat two sets of copies were filed by the election-petitioner in th · F
· Higl:i Court, · one set bdng a corrrect and exact one and the othe;
cblltaining vital omissions and· mistakes. This position is not dispu.'
. tild:by· the responde11,t (election,petitioner). In reply to the preli-
minary objection rai.sed by the appellant, the respondent rebutted the
cha.i;ge on the ground that the appellant had got a correct: copy as
required by s. 8I (3) of the Act .and, therefore, he could not be heard G
I@ complain of any non-compliance with the provisions of the afore-
&aid sub-section. · ' ..

"· -1' ' ..

< - A;fter goinithrough the' judgment ofthe High Court it is not·
C!wr whQtlierthe appellant received-the correct copy of the petition ll
6i an: iricorrect due. On tlie other hand, on the evidence and admit-
tetl· faets the following cir~umstances appear to be undisputed ;
SuPREMB COURT REPORtS (i984J 3 S.C.it.
A
(a) that two sets of copies were filed by the _election-petitioner
in the High Court, ·

(b) that· one set was correct as required by the Act" aud

(c) the other set was incorrect as it contained vital ~missions
B and mistakes regarding the details of corrupt practices alle· ·
ged against the appellant. ·

There is, however, no clear evidence or finding to show that the
copies which were received by the appellant were correct or incorrect
c • and there \s some divergence on this point. The High Court• seems
to have come to the C<)nclusion that.as the respondent had filed cor·
. reel copies also, she did not violate the ·provisions of s. 81 (3j ao.,d it
·was for the appellant to have chosen the correct copy from the two
sets. The learned Judge of the'High Court has.also invoked )he .
doctrine of benefit-of-doubt in order to cure the non-compliance of
D the mandatory provisions of s. 81 (3). ··

· On going.through the relevant evidence we find that· there is
overwhelming material to show that the. appellant did not receive
the correct copy and even the respondent in her evidence did not·
categorically deny this fact. The respondent in her evidence be·
E fore the Court·admitted that out \>f the 22·23 copies filed by her,
10 copies were correct and were duly signed by her and the rest
were left with the counsel with instructions to get them corrected,
Therefore, she was nof at all sure whether all the copies were
correeted or not. She further admitted that in some of the copies
she did not initial the various corrections and that Exts. R-1,
F R~2, R-3 and R-4 were not out of those 10 copies which had
been filed by he_r along with the election petition at the residence
of the Registrar. There is, however, clear evidence to show that the
copies which were received hy the appellant were Exts. R'i to R·4,
which admittedly were not correct. copies of the election petition.
G
This bein~ the position, it is manifest that ~he appellant did not
receive the correct copi'es as contemplated by s. 81 (3) of the Act,
The respondent has also not been able to prove that the copies ser-
ved on the appellant were out ofthe 10 corrected copies which she had
signed and filed. It appears that in view of a large number of copies
H of the petition having been filed, there was an utter confusion as to
.
which one was correct and which was not... It is obvious that if an,
'
kAlENDRA SINGH v. USHA RANl'(Fazai Ali, i.) 21
election- petitioner files a number of copies, s~me of which may. be A
correct and s1>me may be incorrect, it is his duty to see that tire copy
served on the.respondent is a correct oue. A perusal of ss. 81 \3)
and 86 of the Act gives the'impression that they do not contemplate
filing of incorrect copies at all and if an election-petitioner disregards
'the mandate contained ins. 81 (3) by filing incorrect copies, he takes,_
the risk of the petition being dismissed in limine under s. 86. _It is 8·
no ·part of the duty _of the' respondent· ~o wade thfough tl1e 'entire
record in order to find out which is the correct copy. If out of the
copies filed, the respondent's copy is found to be an incorrect one, it
amounts to non-compliance of. the provisions of s. 81 {3) which is
·sufficient to entail a dismissal of the e.Jection petitionat the behest..
c
Hence, the mandate contained ins. 81 (3) cannot be equated
. with s. 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which makes certain
a
omissions as curable irregularity. No such concept can be impor-
ted into ihe electimilaw because the object of the law is that
the electoral process should no~- be set at naught 'and an elected D
candidate should not be thrown out unless· the grounds mentioned
in the Act are clearly and fully proved. An election dispute con·
cerns the entire constituency and in a parliamentary democracy it is of
paramount importance that duly elected representatives should be
available to share the responsibility in the due discharge of their
duties. - That is why the law provides time-bound dis)?osal of election E
disputes and holds out a mandate for procedural compliance.

In these circumstances, therefore, in the instant case there was
absolutely 'no justification for the learned Judge to h_ave invoked the
doctrine of benefit-of-doubt. We are satisfied that it has not been F
proved by the respondent that she filed correct copies of the election
petition of, for that matter the appellant gol the correct copy and riot
. the incorrect one, in the face of the -clear and categori1al assertion
by him that he did not receive the correct c9py.
For these reasons, therefore, the appeal is allowed and the elec-
tion petition fiied by the respondent is dismissed under s.. 86 of the G
Act. There will ~ no order as to costs. ·

Civil Appeal Nos._9 & 10 of 1983

There two connected appeals also involve more or less the same H
point of law as was ·involved in. Civil Appeal No'. 3702 of 1982,
• with the difference that in Civil Appeal No. 9• of 1983, J.P. Goyal,
'
28 ~UPREME coul<:t REPORTS [1984] 3 S.C.R.
A
·and in Civil Appeal No. 10 of 1983;.Bishamber Nath Pandey, (appel·
lantsl were declared elected to. the Rajya Sabha on March 29,
1982. An election petition to sefaside their election was filed on
May 10, 1982 by the. Respondent (Raj Narain) making a number
of allegations. When the case came up before the Court on 5. 7 .82,
B an application was made by the respondents for amendment of the
original petition by insertion of page 17, which was allowed. The.
appellants filed a petition before the Election Judge for rejecting the
election petition of the respondents because no amendment could be
allowed which would have the effect of defeating or bypassing the ·
provisions ofs.81 (3) of the Representation of the People Act (for
short, referred to as the 'Act').
c
It may be stated here that Shri Bishamb_,r Nath Pandey has in
·the meantime been appofoted as· Governor of OriSsa and has resig·
ned his membership of the Rajya Sabha, Therefore, as requested
at the Bar, his name is deleted from the catego_ry ofappellqnts:
D
The main argument on behalf of the· remaining appellants'
was that 11 copies of the ebction petition were filed on 10.5.1982
and although the. copies wl1ich were served e>n them did contain
page 17 yet the original petition.did not contain page 17 and was
·sought to be added orily by". way of approacl1ing the Court for
E amendment of the petition. It was further con.tended that the
Court had· n~ jurisdiction to accede to the prayer for amendment of
the petition when at the time of filing the petitioµ, the mandate
contained in s. 81 (3) was not complied with. In other words, the
.position seems to be that wl1ile the copies which were sei;ved on the
appellants did contain page 17 yet the origi1ral election petitton d~d.
F not contain page 17. This being the admitted position,it could·
not be s•id that the copies served on the appellants were the correct.
and exact copies of the election·petition. The provision,ois. 81 (3)
is clear and •pecific and requires that every copy of the election.
Petition must be a .true and exact copy of the petition.

The learned counsel for the respondent S\lbmitted that this is
a highly technical objection and did not cause aity prejJ.ldice to the
appellants bec.ause so far as their copies WeFe concerned they already
contained page 17. Mr. Bhandare, counsel fot the .appellants,
however, submitted that this is beside the point and does not cure
the invalidity of the election petition filed on 10.5.8:2. · The J:!jandate
contain~d ins. 81 (3J enjoins that there should be no difference ~1'
JµJENDRA SINGH v. USHA RANI (Faza1 Ali, J.) 29 •

any kind whatsoever barring some typographical \lf insignificant A
omissions between the petition filed and the copy served on the
respondent. If an entire page is missing in the petition but it is
there in the copy served on th.e respondent, then it is manifest that
'the copy served was not an exact and true copy of the petition. The
consequences of the mandatory provisions of s.81 cftcould not be.
B
. got over ·by praying for an ame"dment of the election petition
becaus~ that would defeat the very object and purpo;e of s. 81 (3). ·
It is not disputed that this discrepancy between the election P'tition
and the copies served on the appellants was undoubtedly there. In
these circumstances, the High Court .was wrong and committed a
serious error of law in allowing the amendment of the petition. The c
Fj:igh Court should have tried to appreciate the tenor and spirit of
the mandate contained in s.81 (3) of the Act. In the case of Sharif·
ud·Dinv. Abdul Gani Lone(') this Court dismissed the . election
petition only on the ground that the words "attested to be truea
copy" were not signed by the election-petitioner and held that this
was not a sufficient compliance with the provisions of s.89 131 of the D
Jammu &Xashmir Repr-esentation of the People Act, which is the
same as s.81 (3) of the Act. In the instant. case, the inconsistency
"is much greate~than in Sharif-ud-Din's case.

-J.. -·
· Simllarly,in an earlier case of Satya Narain v. Dhuja Ral'f!-& E
Ors(')., this Court he Id as follows : - ..
"If there is any halt or arrest in progress of the case, the
object of the Act will be completely frustrated. We are,
therefore, clearly of ·opinion that the !'st part of section F
81 (3) with which we are mainly concerned in this appeal
is a peremptory provision and total non-compliance with
the same will entail dismissal of the election petition
under section 86 ~f the Act". ·
G
This view has b~en consistently taken all through in all the
decided cases of this Court so far. Reliance was, however, placed
by the counsel for the respondents on the fcillo\Ving. observations of
.. .-f Divivedi, J., in Satya Narain's case:
..
(1) [1980] l SCR 1177.
,f..2) [1974] 3 SCR 20, I
•
30 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984] 3 S.C.R.

A "Our decision restores that primacy of procedure over
justice. It make s.86 (I) a tyrannical master. The
rigidity of the rule of precedent ties ·me to its chains.
My only hope now. is _that Parliament would make a
just choice between the ·social interest in the supply
of c"pies by the election petitioner alongwith hiselec-
tion petition and the social interest in the. puritY of
election by excluding s.81 (3) from the.purview of s.86
B (I) Of the Act. . •. .

The aforesaid observatiMs express a pious wish but do not at
all detract from what has been decided in thfs case and with which
. the learned Judge also agreed. Despite these ob.servations, the
Parliament in its wisdom has not made any· attelllpt to interfere
c with 'the peremptive and rnandatOry provisions of s. 81 (3) resulting
in the consequence' of d_ismissal of the petition under s.86 of the
Act.

For the reasons given above,. we allow the appeals, set aside
the judgment of the High Court and. dismiss the election petitions
D in limine Uf!.der s.86 of the Act. In the circumstances, there will be
no order as to costs.

N.Y,K. Appeals_ al lowed.

,