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 omission to write the words "true copy" on the copies accompanying an election petition, though the copies were exact copies and bore the petitioner's signatures, amounted to non-compliance with section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 so as to attract dismissal under section 90(3).
Analysis: The statutory scheme made compliance with section 81 a condition for a valid election petition, but the Court construed the copy requirement in the context of the object of the provision and the earlier construction placed on similar defects. The copies served were admittedly true copies, the requisite number had been filed, and each copy bore the petitioner's signature. The absence of the literal endorsement "true copy" did not create a material or substantial variation, and the signature appended to the copies sufficiently authenticated them. The Court held that the test was substantial compliance, not rigid literalism, where no prejudice or real departure from the statutory purpose was shown.
Conclusion: The omission did not amount to fatal non-compliance with section 81(3), and section 90(3) was not attracted.
Ratio Decidendi: A copy accompanying an election petition satisfies section 81(3) if it is substantially a true copy and is authenticated by the petitioner's signature, even though the words "true copy" are not expressly written on it.