Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the requirement in section 89(3) of the Jammu and Kashmir Representation of the People Act, 1957 that every copy of an election petition be attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy is mandatory, and whether non-compliance attracts dismissal under section 94(1) of that Act.
Analysis: The provision was construed in the context of the statutory scheme governing election petitions and the consequences expressly attached by section 94(1). The Court noted that the right to challenge an election is statutory, that section 89(3) is directed to ensuring that respondents receive an authenticated true copy at the earliest opportunity, and that attestation by an advocate cannot be treated as equivalent to attestation by the petitioner himself. The earlier authorities relied upon by the parties were distinguished on their facts, and the emphasis placed by the statute on the petitioner's own signature was treated as material. Since the Act itself prescribes the manner of compliance and the consequence of default, substantial compliance was held insufficient.
Conclusion: The requirement in section 89(3) is mandatory, and failure to attesting the copies under the petitioner's own signature renders the election petition liable to dismissal under section 94(1).