TaxTMI Login
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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether defects in the verification of the affidavit filed in support of allegations of corrupt practice in an election petition warranted dismissal in limine under Section 86(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. (ii) Whether an election petition filed in Hindi language was liable to be dismissed for non-compliance with Rule 2(b) of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules.
Issue (i): Whether defects in the verification of the affidavit filed in support of allegations of corrupt practice in an election petition warranted dismissal in limine under Section 86(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Analysis: Section 86(1) permits dismissal in limine only for non-compliance with Sections 81, 82 or 117 of the Act. The requirement of an accompanying affidavit in support of corrupt practice allegations flows from Section 83(1) and the prescribed form. The settled view, reaffirmed from earlier authority, is that defects in verification or in the prescribed affidavit are curable and do not attract the drastic consequence of dismissal under Section 86(1). Any further consequences of an allegedly defective affidavit are matters for trial, not threshold rejection.
Conclusion: The defect in the affidavit was curable and did not justify dismissal of the election petition under Section 86(1) of the Act.
Issue (ii): Whether an election petition filed in Hindi language was liable to be dismissed for non-compliance with Rule 2(b) of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules.
Analysis: The High Court Rules framed under Article 225 are procedural and cannot override constitutional provisions. Article 348(1) generally requires proceedings in High Courts to be in English, but Article 348(2) authorises use of Hindi or another State language in High Court proceedings pursuant to a valid notification. In light of the notification issued by the Governor of Madhya Pradesh under Article 348(2), the requirement in Rule 2(b) could not be treated as rendering a petition filed in Hindi non-maintainable. The defect alleged was not one that attracted Section 86(1) of the Act.
Conclusion: The election petition filed in Hindi could not be dismissed under Section 86(1) for alleged non-compliance with Rule 2(b) of the High Court Rules.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the High Court's refusal to reject the election petition at the threshold was sustained, leaving the election petition to proceed to trial.
Ratio Decidendi: A defect in the verification or supporting affidavit under Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is curable and does not attract dismissal under Section 86(1), and procedural High Court rules cannot override a valid constitutional authorisation permitting the use of Hindi in High Court proceedings.
TaxTMI 
