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 non-deposit of the security required at the time of presenting an election petition under Section 117 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 renders the petition liable to rejection and whether the petition can be dismissed only after notice to the respondent and commencement of trial.
Analysis: The right to challenge an election is a statutory right under Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India and must be exercised strictly in the manner prescribed by the governing statute. Section 117 requires deposit of the prescribed security at the time of presentation of the petition, and the scheme of the Act shows that compliance with that requirement is a condition precedent to further proceedings. The earlier provisions dealing with dismissal for non-compliance and the amended scheme of trial do not confer any discretion to dispense with or reduce the security. The marginal note to Section 86 cannot control the plain language of the section, and the failure to deposit the security is not cured by the fact that notice has not yet been issued.
Conclusion: The requirement of deposit under Section 117 is mandatory, and an election petition filed without that security is liable to be rejected.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute makes deposit of security a condition precedent to presentation of an election petition, the Court has no discretion to waive, reduce, or postpone that requirement, and non-compliance justifies rejection of the petition.