1999 (4) TMI 657 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Upholds Election Petition Despite Technical Errors

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal in a case involving non-compliance with Section 81(3) of the Representation of People Act, 1951. The Court found ... - Issues Involved:1. Non-compliance with Section 81(3) of the Representation of People Act, 1951.2. Alleged non-supply of a true copy of Annexure XV.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Non-compliance with Section 81(3) of the Representation of People Act, 1951:The appellant contested the election petition on the grounds that the copy of the affidavit served on him was not a 'true copy' as required by Section 81(3) of the Act. The appellant argued that the copy of the affidavit did not include the name, seal, and stamp of the Notary, which were present on the original affidavit filed with the Election Petition. This omission, according to the appellant, rendered the copy non-compliant with Section 81(3) and warranted dismissal of the election petition under Section 86(1) of the Act.The Supreme Court referred to the case of Dr. Shipra v. Shanti Lal Khoiwal, where it was held that the absence of notarial endorsement on the affidavit served on the respondent was a fatal defect. However, the Court distinguished the present case from Dr. Shipra's case, noting that in Dr. Shipra's case, the affidavit served did not show that it was sworn or affirmed, rendering it no affidavit at all. In contrast, the affidavit served on the appellant in the present case did contain the endorsement of attestation by the Notary, albeit without the name and seal.The Court reiterated the principle from Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar v. Roop Singh Rathore, which held that the word 'copy' in Section 81(3) does not mean an exact copy but one that is substantially true and does not mislead a reasonable person. The Court found that the omission of the Notary's name and seal in the copy of the affidavit served on the appellant was not a vital defect that could mislead or prejudice the appellant in formulating his defense. Thus, there was substantial compliance with Section 81(3), and the election petition was not liable to be dismissed on this ground.2. Alleged non-supply of a true copy of Annexure XV:The appellant also raised an objection regarding the non-supply of a true copy of Annexure XV, a newspaper report, which was part of the election petition. The High Court compared the copy of Annexure XV served on the appellant with the original filed with the Election Petition and found them to be identical. The Supreme Court independently verified this finding and confirmed that there was no variation between the two documents.The Court noted that the appellant did not press this challenge after the comparison, reserving the right to raise other points concerning Annexure XV at the trial. Therefore, the objection regarding Annexure XV was not based on any factual discrepancy, and the High Court's finding on this issue was upheld.Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that the election petition did not suffer from any defect that could attract the provisions of Section 86(1) of the Act. The appeal was dismissed, and the Court requested the High Court to expeditiously dispose of the election petition pending since 1996.