Holding

A document referred to in an election petition that forms part of the material facts or particulars of a corrupt practice is an integral part of the petition, and failure to serve it on the respondent violates Section 81(3), necessitating dismissal under Section 86(1).

Summary

The appellant, a voter in the Mala constituency of Kerala, filed an election petition challenging the election of the sitting Chief Minister on grounds of several alleged corrupt practices, including a notice, a photograph, and a video cassette purportedly used for election propaganda. The petition annexed these documents, but copies were not served on the respondent along with the petition, leading the Kerala High Court to dismiss the petition for non‑compliance with Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The Supreme Court examined whether such annexed documents become an integral part of the petition and therefore must be served on the respondent. It held that any document referred to in the petition that contains material facts or particulars of the alleged corrupt practice forms an integral part, and failure to serve it violates Section 81(3), mandating dismissal under Section 86(1). Applying this principle, the Court found the video cassette to be integral and affirmed the High Court’s dismissal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, leaving the election result undisturbed.

Issues considered

Whether a document annexed to an election petition and referred to therein constitutes an integral part of the petition requiring service on the respondent under Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Whether non‑furnishing of such a document obliges the court to dismiss the election petition under Section 86(1).
Whether the High Court erred in treating the notice and photograph similarly to the video cassette with respect to the requirement of service.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order VII Rule 11(a), s. Order VI Rule 16
Representation of the People Act, 1951s. 116-A, s. 123, s. 81(3), s. 83, s. 86(1)

Subjects

election petitioncorrupt practiceRepresentation of the People ActSection 81(3)Section 86(1)integral part of petitionservice of documentsjudicial dismissalelection law

Judgment

U.S. SASIDHARAN
A v.
K. KARUNAKARAN & ANR

AUGUST 23, 1989
)
B [MURARI MOHON DUTT AND T. KOCHU THOMMEN, JJ.] '

The Representation of the People Act 1951-Sections 81 and 86---
Power of High Court to dismiss Election Petition-Document forms
integral part of Election Petition and not furnished to respondent along-
with copy of the Petition-The effect thereof !
c The appellant was a voter in the Mala constituency of the Kerala
~

Legislative Assembly, election whereof was held on March 23, 1987 and
the first respondent, sitting Chief Minister of the State was declared
elected from the said constituency.

D The appellant challenged the validity of !st Respondent's election
on the ground of various corrupt practices committed by him; It was
alleged in the Election Petition that at the instigation of the first respon-
dent, Respondent No. 2 published a notice wherein it was stated that he
was withdrawing his candidature. It was further stated in the notice 'r
that his purpose of contesting was to highlight the grievances of the
E Kudumbi Samudayam community with a view to get that community
the status of Scheduled Caste and since the Kerala Government under
the leadership of the first respondent (returned candidate) had decided
to give a favourable consideration in regard to the community's
den.and for inclusion in the list of Scheduled Castes, it had become
necessary for the first respondent to win the election. He thereby .·~
F offered his support to Respondent No. I. According to the appellant this
act constituted a corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123 of
the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

It was further alleged by the Election Petitioner that Respondent
No. I, committed corrupt practice by asking Government servants to
G lead processions in support of his candidature. A photograph of a pro-
cession was filed. ,...,,

Election Petitioner further alleged that at the instigation of the
first respondent a video cassette called "Malayude Purogathi" had
been used in the constituency wherein persons like Shri Jose P. George,
H Government Pleader, Kerala High Court, Shri Tomas Thottappally,
958
U.S. SASIDHARAN v. K. KARUNAKARAN 959

Veterinary Doctor spoke in support of the first respondent which is a
A
corrupt practice. The video cassette was filed in a sealed cov~r.

The first respondent contested the Election Petition and pleaded
that since. the copies of the photograph, notice and the video cassette
have not been furnished to him alongwith the Election Petition, the same
was liable to be dismissed in limine under section 86(1) for non- B
compliance with the provisions of section 83(1).

The High Court rejected the contention of the appellant that
Respondent No. l could obtain copies of the documents from the High
Court; and defend his case, and took the view that non-furnishing to the
respondent copies of the documents alongwith a copy of the Election
Petition was non-compliance with section 81(3) and as such, the election c
petition was liable to be dismissed, which the High Court did. Hence
this appeal.

Almost identical arguments were advanced before this Court.
Counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the video cassette D
etc. do not from an integral part of the petition, on the other hand,
they had been filed in the proceedings as evidence of facts and copies of
such documents need not he served on the respondent alongwith a copy
( of the Election Petition. On behalf of the first respondent it was mainly
argued that failure to supply the documents violates the provisions of
section 81(3) as in the absence of those the Election Petition served E
cannot be said to be true copy of the election petition as contemplated
by section 81(3) of the Act.

Dismissing the appeal, this Court,

HELD: An election is the democratic method for selecting the F
representatives of the people in Parliament or in the Legislative Assem-
bly. When a candidate gets himself elected by adopting or committing
any corrupt practice, his election must he set aside on proof of such
corrupt practice. At the same time, the procedure prescribed hy the Act
for challenging an election must be strictly followed. [964H-965A]
G
Satya Narain v. Dhuja Ram, [1974] 3 SCR 20.

Whenever there is an allegation of corrupt practice, the election
petition shall contain a concise statement as to the material fact on
which the petitioner relies and also must set forth full particulars of the
corrupt practice alleged by the petitioner. [964F] H
960 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1989) 3 S.C.R.

A When a document forms an integral part of the election petition
and a copy of such document is not furnished to the respondent along-
with a copy of the election petition, the copy of the election petition will
. not be a true copy within the meaning of section 81(3) and, as such, the
Court has to dismiss the election petition under section 86(1) for non-
compliance with section 81(3). [965F-G]
B
Section 81(3) which enjoins that 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.
Section 81(3) however, does not provide for giving of copies of the
documents either referred to in the election petition or filed in the
c proceedings. [963D I

Section 86(1) is a mandate on the Court to dismiss an election
petition if there be a non-compliance with the provisions of section
81(3). [963F]
D
The appellant in the instant case, has not served on the first
respondent a true copy of the election petition inasmuch as admittedly,
a copy of the video cassette which forms an integral part of the election
petition, was uot served alongwith the election petition. It was non- f
compliance with the provisions of section 81(3) of the Act. (M.
E Karunanidhi v. H. V. Hande, [1983] 2 SCC 473). [972H-973AI

The question of exercise of jurisdiction by the Court in permitting
the appellant to supply the particulars does not arise at all. [972F]

Sahodrabai Rai v. Ram Singh Aha'rwar, [1968] 3 SCR 13; Thakur
F Virendra Singh v. Vimal Kumar, [1977] 1 SCR 525; Mithilesh Kumar
Pandey v. Baidyanath Yadav, [1984] 2 SCR 278; Azhar Hussain v.
Rajiv Gandhi, h986] Suppl SCC 315; Shri Udhav Singh v. Madhav
Rao Scindia, [1977] 1 SCC 511 and A. Madan Mohan v. Kalavakunta
Chandrasekhara, [1984] 2 SCC 289.

G CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal (Elec-
tion) No.4030 of 1987.

From the Judgment and Order dated 13 .11.87 of the Kerala High
Court in Election Petition No. 2 of 1987.

H P.S. Poti and T.T. Kunhikannan for the Appellant.
u.s.-sASIDHARAN v. K. KARUNAKARAN (DUTT, J.] 961

f Dr. Y.S. Chitale, A.S. Nambiar, Dileep Pillai, M.A. Firoz and
A
Aseem Mahrotra for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DUTT, J. This appeal under section 116-A of the Representa-
tion of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referrd to as 'the Act') is B
directed against the judgment of the Kerala High Court dismissing the
election petition of the appellant.

"":. The appellant is a voter in the Mala constituency of the Kerala
' y· Legislative Assembly. The election of the members of the Assembly
'! 1 was held on March 23, 1987 and the first respondent, who was then the
" ~ sitting Chief Minister of the State of Kerala, was declared elected from c
" Mala constituency.
'1
The appellant challenged the election of the first respondent to
the Kerala Legislative Assembly on the ground of various corrupt
practices alleged to have been committed by the first respondent. In D
paragraphs 5(i) and 5(ii) of the election petition, the corrupt practice
that was alleged by the appellant was to the effect that the second
respondent, who was a candidate for the election, published a notice
--<. wherein it was declared that the second respondent was withdrawing
from the contest and stated, inter alia, that it was to highlight the
grievances of his community, namely, the Kudumbi Samudayam which E
is a backward community, that he had decided to contest the election,
• and that one of the demands of the community was that it should be
included in the list of Scheduled Castes. Further, the second respon-
dent stated in the notice that the Kerala Government under the leader-
f ship of the first respondent had decided to give favourable considera·
tion in regard to his community's demand for inclusion in the list of F
Scheduled Castes. Accordingly, the second respondent declared in the
notice that for obtaining their rights, it had become necessary that the
first respondent should win in the election and for that purpose he was
withdrawing his candidature offering full support to the first respon·
dent. It was alleged that the second respondent published the notice at
the instigation and with the assistance and initiative and at the cost of G
the first responde11t and his supporters. Such acts constituted corrupt
.J... practice within the meaning of sectio11 123 of the Act.

In paragraph 5(xvi), it is alleged that the first respondent also
committed corrupt practice in the course of his election work by asking
Government servants including Shri P.M. Sh<Jbul Hamced, Teacher, H
962 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 3 S.C.R.

Government Upper Primary School, Kaduppassery, to lead proces-
A
sions in support of his candidature in the constituency. It was submit-
ted by the appellant that he was prepared to prove the allegation by
examining the said persons. A photograph of a procession was filed.

In paragraph 5(xi) of the election petition, the appellant inter
B a/ia stated as follows:

"5(xi). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . Besides
at the instigation of the first respondent a video cassette
called "Malayude Purogathi" has been used in the consti-
tuency. The persons who speak are one Shri Jose P.
George, Government Pleader, Kerala High Court, 2. Shri
c Thomas Thottappally, Veterinary Doctor, Veterinary
Polyclinic, Valiyaparambu. This is also a corrupt practice.
The video cassette is produced herewith in a sealed cover."

The first respondent opposd the election petition by filing a writ-
D ten statement denying the allegations of corrupt practices. It was sub-
mitted by him that as the copies of the said notice, photograph and
video cassette were not supplied to the first respondent along with the
copy of the election petition, the election petition was liable to be
dismissed in limine under section 86(1) for non-compliance with sec- f-
tion 81(3) of the Act.
E
The High Court came to the findings that the allegations in the
election petition would really show that the said documents formed
integral part of the election petition and, therefore, it was really neces-
sary to serve copies of the same on the first respondent and overruled
the contention of the appellant that as he had filed the documents and
F produced the video cassette in Court, the first respondent could very
well take copies of the same and defend his case. The High Court took
the view that non-furnishing to the first respondent copies of the docu-
ments along with a copy of the election petition was non-compliance
with section 81(3) and, as such, the election petition was liable to be
dismissed under section 86(1) of the Act. In that view of the matter,
G the High Court dismissed the election petition. Hence this appeal.

Section 81 of the Act provides as follows:

"81. Presentation of petitions. (!) An election petition
calling in question any election may be prsented on one or
H more of the grounds _specified in sub-section ( 1) of section
U.S. SASIDHARAN v. K. KARUNAKARAN [DUTT, J.[ 963

~ 100 and section 101 to the High Court by any candidate at A
such election or any elector within forty-five days from, but
not earlier than, the date of election of the rnturned candi-
date, or if there are more than one returned candidate at
the election and the dates of their election are different, the
later of those two dates.
B
(2) [Omitted by Act 47 of 1966.]

~
(3) Every election petition shall be accompanied by as
""\ many copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned in
y the petition and every such copy shall be attested by the

j petitioner under his own 'signature to be a true copy of the c
petition."

We are concerned with section 81(3) which enjoins that 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 D
copy of the petition. Section 81(3), however, does not provide for
giving of copies of the documents either referred to in the election

~
petition or filed in the proceedings. We may now refer to section 86(1)
of the Act which reads as follows:
E

-
"86(1). The High Court shall dismiss an election petition
which does not comply with the provisions of sectiop 81 or
section 82 or section 117."

Section 86(1), therefore, is a mandate on the court to dismiss an

' election petition if there be a non-compliance with the provision of
section 81(3). In other words, both section 81(3) and section 86(1) are
mandatory in nature and if there be any non-compliance with the
mandatory provision of section 81(3), the court will be bound to dis-
F

miss the electiou petition.

Before considering whether a copy of the document referred to
in the election petition or filed in the proceedings should be furnished G
)- to the elected candidate, whose election is under challenge, along with
a copy of the election petition, we may refer to section 83 of the Act
providing as to the contents of an election petition.

Section 83 provides as follows:
H
964 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 3 S.C.R.
"83. Contents of petition.-( I) An election petition-
A
(a) shall contain a concise statement of the material facts
on which the petitioner relies;

(b) shall set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice
B that the petitioner alleges, including as full a statement as
possible of the names of the parties alleged to have com-
mitted such corrupt practice and the date and place of the
commission of each such practice; and

(c) shall be signed by the peiitloner and verified in the ~--y'
manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for J
c the verification of pleadings: \

Provided 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 allega-
D tion of such corrupt practice and the particulars thereof.

(2) Any schedule or annexure to the petition shall also be
signed by the petitioner and verified in the same manner as
the petition."

E It is apparent from clauses (a) and (b) of section 83 that an
election petition shall contain a concise statement of the material facts
and also set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice. These two
requirements are also mandatory in nature. So, whenever there is an
allegation of corrupt practice, the election petition shall contain a
concise statement as to the material fact on which the petitioner relies
F and also must set forth full particulars of the corrupt practice alleged
by the petitioner.

As has been held in Satya Narain v. Dhuja Ram, [1974] 3 SCR
20, the right to challenge an election is not a common law right, but a
special right as conferred by the Act. The provision for setting aside
G the election on the grounds mentioned in section 100 of the Act includ-
ing the ground of corrupt practice has been made for the purpose of
maintaining purity of elections. An election is the democratic method
for selecting the representatives of the people in Parliament or in the
Legislative Assembly. When a candidate gets himself elected by
adopting or committing any corrupt practice, his election must be set
H aside on proof of such corrupt practice. At the same time, the proce-

..
U.S. SASJDHARAN v. K. KARUNAKARAN [DUTI, J.] 965

dure prescribed by the Act for challenging an election must be strictly
followed. So, if there be any deviation from or non-compliance with A
the provision of section 81(3), the court will have no other alternative
than to dismiss the election petition.

"\ It has been already noticed that the High Court dismissed the
election petition as the appellant has not furnished to the first respon- B
dent copies of the notice, photograph and the video cassette referred
to above along with a copy of the election petition. So far as the copies
~ of the notice and the photograph are concerned, we do not think that
\_ , the High Court was justified in holding that these should have also
r been furnished to the first respondent along with the copy of the elec-
~- lion petition. Dr. Chitale, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
1 first respondent, also has not urged that the copies of these two docu- C
ments should have been served upon the first respondent. What has,
however, been vehemently urged on behalf of the first respondent is
that he shoul .. have been served along with the election a copy of the
'video cassette. This contention will be considered presently.
D
We have already referred to section 83 relating to the contents of
an election petition. The election petition shall contain a concise state-
, j ment of material facts and also set forth full particulars of any corrupt
\ practice. The material facts or particulars relating to any corrupt
practice may be contained in a document and the election petitioner,
without pleading the material facts or particulars of corrupt practice,

-
E
may refer to the document. When such a reference is made in the
election petition, a copy of the document must be supplied inasmuch
as by making a reference to the document and without pleading its
contents in the election petition, the document becomes incorporated
f in the election petition by reference. In other words, it forms an integ-
ral part of the election petition. Section 81(3) provides for giving a true F
copy of the election petition. When a document forms an integral part
of the election petition and a copy of such document is not furnished to
the respondent along with a copy of the election petition, the copy of
the election petition will not be a true copy within the meaning of
section 81(3) and, as such, the court has to dismiss the election petition
under section 86(1) for non-compliance with section 81(3). G

On the other hand, if the contents of the document in question
are pleaded in the election petition, the document does not form an
integral part of the election petition. In such a case, a copy of the
document need not be served on the respondent and that will not be
non-compliance with the provision of section 81(3). The document H
966 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 3 S.C.R.

may be relied upon as an evidence in the proceedings. In ot!)er words,
).
A
when the document does not form an integral part of the election
petition, but has been either referred to in the petition or filed in the
proceedings as evidence of any fact, a copy of such a document need
not be served on the respondent along with a copy of the election
petition.
B ~
There may be another situation when a copy of the document
need not be served on the respondent along with the election petition.
When a document has been filed in the proceedigs, but is not referred
to in the petition either directly or indirectly, a copy of such document
need not be served on the respondent. What section 81(3) enjoins is y
-
that a true copy of the election petition has to be served on the respon-
c dents including the elected candidate. When a document forms an -.(
integral part of an election petition containing material facts or
particulars of corrupt practice, then a copy of the election petition
without such a document is not complete and cannot be said to be a
true copy of the election petition. Copy of such document must be
'
D served on the respondents.

Keeping in view the above principles, let us consider whether the
video cassette, as mentioned in paragraph 5(xi) in the election peti-
ti on, forms an integral part of the election petition. It is not disputed
that a copy of the video cassette was not served on the first respondent
'r

-
E along with the copy of the election petition. Indeed, the same was
submitted by the appellant in a sealed cover with an application pray-
ing for keeping the video cassettee in the sealed cover till the stage of
examination of witnesses. It is, therefore, apparent that not only the
copy of the video cassette was not served on the first respondent, but

F
also the appellant had no intention of serving a copy of the same on
the first respondent.
-.
It is urged by Mr. Poti, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellant, that the video cassette is only an evidence of the fact
stated in paragraph 5(xi) of the election petition, relevant portion of
which has been extracted above. It has been alleged in paragraph 5(xi)
G that at the instigation of the first respondent, a video cassette called
"Malayude Purogathi" has been used in the constituency. The expres-
....
sion "Malayude Purogathi" means progress of Mala, which is the con-
stituency in question. Further, it has been alleged that the persons
whose speeches have been recorded in the video cassette regarding
progress of Mala are two Government officers named in paragraph
H 5(xi), and that the cass··tte has been used in the constituency at the
U.S. SASJDHARAN v. K. KARUNAKARAN [DUTI, J.] 967
,A
instigation of the first respondent. This has been averred as a corrupt
A
practice. It is also mentioned in the same paragraph that the video
cas~ette is produced with the election petition in a sealed cover. It is
not disputed that by corrupt practice as referred to in paragraph 5(xi)
of the election petition, the appellant is referring to the corrupt
practice within the meaning of section 123(7) of the Act. Section 123
~
enumerates the different corrupt practices for the purposes of the Act. B
One of the corrupt practices, as contained in section 123(7), is the
obtaining or procuring or abetting or attempting to obtain or procure
~
by a candidate or his agent, or by any other person, with the consent of
a candidate or his election agent, any assistance other than _the giving
" ~ of vote for the furtherance of the prospects of that candidate's elec-
lion, from any person in the service of the Government and belonging
} to any of the classes as mentioned in clauses (a) to (g) of the section. c
' The significant ingredient of corrupt practice, as mentioned in section
123(7), is that the assistance which is obtained or procured from a
Government servant of the classes mentioned in clauses (a) to (g) must
be for the furtherance of the prospect of the election of the candidate
who or on whose behalf such assistance has been obtained or pro- D
cured. It is not disputed that the two Government servants mentioned
in paragraph 5(xi) of the election petition whose speeches have been
' recorded in the video cassette, are Government servants within the
'"\ meaning of section 123(7).

The speeches of the two Government servants relating to E
"Malayude Purogathi'', that is, the progress of Mala, simpliciter will
not constitute a corrupt practice within the meaning of section 123(7).
In order to be a corrupt practice within the meaning of section 123(7),
the speeches of the said Government servants as recorded in the video

' cassette and alleged to have been used in the constituency at the insti-
gation of the first respondent, must be with a view to obtaining or F
procuring or abetting or attempting to obtain or procure the assistance
for the furtherance of the prospects of the first respondent's election.
It is urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant that as no such
allegation has been made in paragraph 5(xi), the 'allegations in that
paragraph do not constitute a corrupt practice within the meaning of
section 123(7) and, accordingly, the video cassette does not form an G
,;._ integral part of that paragraph.

We are unable to accept the contention. It is true that there is no
allegation in paragraph 5(xi) that the video cassette was nsed by file
first respondent for the purpose of any assistance for the furtherance
of the prospects of his election. But, in onr opinion, it is apparent that H
968 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1989] 3 S.C.R.
J..
such an allegation is implied in the paragraph. After alleging that the
A
video cassette was used in the constituency at the instigation of the first
respondent, it is alleged that the same constituted a corrupt practice
which points to the only fact that the video cassette containing the
speeches of the Government servants was used for the purpose of
some assistance for the furtherance of the prospects of the election of :>-
B the first respondent. It is implied that the video cassette is referred to
in paragraph 5(xi) in regar~ to the alleged assistance for the furt-

-
herance of the prospects of the election of the first respondent and,
accordingly, the contents of the cassette are incorporated in that
paragraph by reference. In other words, the cassette forms an integral
part of paragraph 5(xi). In this connection, we may refer to Item No. 1 ·-T
of the List of Documents which reads as follows:
c -('
'
"l. Video Cassette by Kala Audio & Video, Kallettum-
kara, Tricur District titled "Malayude Purogathi" prepared
at the instance of the first respondent for election pro-
paganda, as stated in paragraph 5(xi) of the election
D petition."

It is clear from Item No. 1 of the List of Documents that it is the
specific case of the appellant that the video cassette was prepared at
the instance of the first respondent for election propaganda, as stated 7'
in paragraph 5(xi) of the election petition. Whether it was so stated in
E Item No. 1 of the List of Documents Of not it is, as stated already,
apparent on the face of the allegation in paragraph 5(xi) that it was
used by the first respondent by way of assistance in furtherance of the
prospects of his election and so the video cassette formed an integral
part of paragraph 5(xi). Unless a copy of the video cassette was given

F
to the first respondent, he would not know how the speeches of the
said Government servants could assist the furtherance of the prospects
of his election and would not be in a position to deal with the allega-
tions made in paragraph 5(xi). The copy of the election petition which
'
was served on the first respondent without a copy of the video cassette
was not, therefore, a true copy of the election petition within the
meaning of section 81(3) of the Act.
G
Much reliance has been placed on behalf of the appellant on a
decision of this Court in Sahodrabai Rai v. Ram Singh Aharwar, [ 1968] ""
3 <:rq_ 13. In that case, the appellant filed an election petition chat-
lengmg the election of the first respondent on four grounds, one of
which was corrupt practice inasmuch as the first respondent had
H appealed to religion through a p'amphlet marked Annexure A. In the
U.S. SASIDHARAN v. K. KARUNAKARAN [DUTT, J.] 969
}.
body of the election petition a translation in English of the Hindi
A
pamphlet was incorporated. The original pamphlet was attached to the
election petition and was marked Annexure A. The election peti-
ti oner, thereafter, stated in the petition that the pamphlet formed part
of the petition. The first respondent raised an objection that a copy of
-{ the pamphlet had not been annexed to the copy of the election petition
served on him and, therefore, the ·etec.tion petition was liable to be B
dismissed under section 86 of the Act. The High Court accepted the
objection and dismissed the election petition. On an appeal to this
.. Court by the appellant, this Court set aside the judgment of the High
-'r Court holding that the pamphlet must be treated as a document and
not as a part of the election petition in so far as the averments were
j concerned.
c
The decision in Sahodrabai's case does not, in our opinion, lend
any assistance to the contention of the appellant that the video cassette
is only evidence and does not form part of the election petition. In that
case, the election petition reproduced the whole of the pamphlet and,
accordingly, it was held that it was only an evidence and not a part of p
the election petition. What has been stressed in that case is that each
and every document does not form part of the election petition.
'4\ Moreover, the Court was considering the scope of section 83(2) of the
Act before it was amended. We are unable to accepfthe contention
made on behalf of the appellant that a document, in no circumstances,

-
can form an integral part of the election petition. As has been noticed E
already, the pamhlet in that case was fully reproduced in the election
petition and, therefore, it was merely an evidence and did not form a
part of the election petition.

'
In Thakur Virendra Singh v. Vimal Kumar, [1977] 1 SCR 525,
the question was whether a leaflet, a copy of which was Annexure A to F
the election petition and referred to in paragraph 13 thereof, con-
stituted a part of ·the election petition and, accordingly should have
been served on the elected candidate. This Court overruled the con-
tention of the elected candidate that the petition was liable to be
dismissed as the copy of the petition meant to be served on the appel-
!ant was not accompanied by a copy of Annexure A on the ground that G
J_ the allegation of corrupt practice and particulars thereof, as given in
paragraph 13 of the election petition, were sufficiently clear and pre-
cise. This decision is, therefore, of no help to the contention of the
appellant that the video cassette is not a part of the election petition.

The most important case for our purpose is the decision of this H
970 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 3 S.C.R.

A Court in M. Karunanidhi v. H.V. Hande, [1983] 2 SCC 473. In that
case, in paragraph 18(b) of the election petition it was alleged as
follows:

"18(b). The first Respondent erected fancy banners
throughout the constituency and the number of such )>.
B banners is about 50. A photograph of one such banner is
filed herewith. The cost of each such banner will be not less
than Rs.1,000. The expenditure involved in erecting these
fifty banners is about Rs.50,000. It is submitted that the ~
first Respondent has incurred the above said expenditure .T
which added to the amount disclosed in the Return of Elec-
tion Expenses exceeds the amount fixed under Section ""'
c 77(3) of the Act thus amounting to a corrupt practice under
Section 123(6) of the Act."

Admittedly, a copy of the photograph as referred to in paragraph
18(b) was not furnished to the appellant along with a copy of the
D election petition. This Collft took the view that the averment con-
tained in paragraph 18(b) would be incomplete without a copy of the
photograph being supplied with a copy of the election petition. The
reason being that it was not possible to conceive of the dimension of
the large fancy banner unless one had a look at the photograph. In that
view of the matter, it was held by this Court that the photograph
E formed an integral part of the petition and a copy of it should have
been served along with the election petition. Accordingly, this Court >
reversed the judgment of the High Court in so far as it held that the
photograph of the fancy banner adverted to in paragraph 18(b) could
not be treated to be an integral part of the election petition, but was
merely a piece of evidence as to the nature and type of fancy banner
F erected by the appellant and, therefore, failure to supply a copy of the
photograph to the appellant did not amount to a violation of the provi-
sion of sub-section (3) of section 81 of the Act.

The decision in Karunanidhi' s case fully supports the view which
we take, namely, the video cassette formed an integral part of the
G election petition because without a copy of the video cassette the first
respondent was not in a position to know whether' the video cassette -4.
recording the speeches of the two Government servants could be said
to have been used by the first respondent for the purpose of any
assistance in furtherance of the prospects of his election. Karu-
nanidhi's case was referred to and approved in a subsequent decision
H of this Court in Mithilesh Kumar Pandey v. Baidyanath Yadav, [1984]
2SCR278.
U.S. SASIDHARAN v. K. KARUNAKARAN [DUIT, J.] 971
f.
Mr. Poti has, however, urged that if the averments in paragraph A
5(xi) of the election petition are full and complete or, in other words, if
they do not give particulars of the corrupt practice, in that case the said
averments may be struck out under the provisions of Order VI Rule 16
of the Code of Civil Procedure, but the entire election petition cannot
.... be dismissed. It has already been noticed that under clauses (a) and (b)
of section 83( 1) of the Act, an election petition shall contain a concise B
statement of the material facts and shall set forth full particulars of any
corrupt practice. The material facts and the full particulars of corrupt
< practice will constitute cause of action for the election petition. If the
"[· material facts are not supplied or full particulars of corrupt practice are
not given in the election petition, as a consequence of which the elec-
,t tion petition does not disclose any cause of action, it is liable to be
dismissed under the provision of Order VII, Rule ll{a) of the Code of
c
Civil Procedure. See Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi, [1986] Suppl.
SCC315.

Apart from the striking out the whole of the election petition
when it does not disclose a cause of action, the court can strike out any D
statement which is irrelevant, scandalous or has nothing to do with the
cause of action under the provision of Order VI, Rule 16 of the Code
-~ of Civil Procedure. It is submitted by Mr. Poti that if the averments in
paragraph 5(xi) of the election petition are irrelevant or do not dis-
close any cause of action, at the most the said paragraph can be struck
E
... out by the court under the provision of Order VI, Rule 16 of the Code
of Civil Procedure. We are afraid, we are unable to accept the conten-
tion. We are not concerned with whether paragraph 5(xi) can be struck
out by the court under the provision of Order VI, Rule 16 of the Code
of Civil Procedure as not disclosing any cause of action, but really we
l are concerned with the question as to whether the copy of the election
petition which has been served on the first respondent without a copy F
of the video cassette is a true copy of the election petition or not within
the meaning of section 81(3) of the Act. We have come to the conclti-
sion that the appelhnt has not served on the first respondent a true
copy of the election petition inasmuch as, admittedly, a copy of the
video cassette which forms an integral part of the election petition, was
not served along with the election petition. There is, therefore, no G
~ substance in the contention which is rejected.

Mr. Po ti has drawn our attention to the observations made by
this Court in Shri Udhav Singh v. Madhav Rao Scindia, [1977] 1 SCC
511 which reads as follows:
H
972 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 3 S.C.R.
J.
"Like the Code of Civil Procedure, this section also envis-
A ages a distinction between "material facts" and ""material
particulars". Clause (a) of sub-section (1) corresponds to
Order 6, Rule 2, while clause (b) is analogous to Order 6,
Rules: 4 and 6 of the Code. The distinction between "mate-
rial facts" and "material particulars" is important because ~

B different consequences may flow from a deficiency of such
facts or particulars in the pleading. Failure to plead even a
single material fact leads to an incomplete cause of action
and incomplete allegations of such a charge are liable to be
struck off under Order 6, Rule 16, Code of Civil Proce-
<lure. If the petition is based solely on those allegations
7
-
c
which suffer from lack of material facts, the petition is
liable to be summarily rejected for want of a cause of
~
action. In the case of a petition suffering from a deficiency
of material particulars, the court has a discretion to allow
the petitioner to supply the required particulars even after
the expiry of limitation."
D
On the basis of the above observations, it is submitted that if
paragraph 5(xi) of the election petition suffers from a deficiency of
material particulars, the court has a discretion to allow the appellant to '!
supply the required particulars even after the expiry of limitation. The
above observations have been made in a different context and are
E quite inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case
which, as noticed already, relate to the question as to whether the
video cassette is an integral part of the election petition and whether
non-furnishing of a copy of the video cassettee to the first respondent
along with a copy of election petition is non-compliance with the man-
-
datory provision of section 81(3) and, as such, liable to be dismissed \
F under section 86( 1) of the Act. The question of exercise of discretion
by the court in permitting the appellant to supply the particulars does
not arise at all.

Lastly, the decision of this Court in A. Madan Mohan v. Kala-
vakunta Chandrasekhara, 11984] 2 SCC 289 has been relied upon by
G the learned Counsel for the appellant. We fail to understand how this
case is of any assistance to the appellant, for in this case also this Court
once more approved of the decision in Karunanidhi's case. No other '""
point has been urged by either party in this appeal.

In view of the discussion made above, we affirm the judgment of
H the High Court dismissing the election petition of the appellant on the
U.S. SASIDHARAN v. K. KARUNAKARAN [DUIT, J.] 973

ground that as the copy of the video cassette was not served on the first A
respondent along with a copy of the election petition, it was non~
compliance with the prvision of section 81(3) of the Act. ·

The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. There will, however, be
no order as to costs.
B
Y. Lal Appeal dismissed.

-

I

--\.

-

).