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 alleged defects in the copy of the election petition served on the returned candidate attracted dismissal under Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. (ii) Whether a candidate referred to only in an annexure, and not in the body of the election petition, was required to be impleaded under Section 82(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Issue (i): Whether alleged defects in the copy of the election petition served on the returned candidate attracted dismissal under Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Analysis: The statutory scheme distinguishes between defects in the petition as presented and defects in the copy served on the respondent. Section 81(3) requires every copy served to be attested as a true copy, and non-compliance is a ground for dismissal under Section 86. The effect of annexures depends on whether their contents are fully incorporated in the body of the petition or are merely evidentiary. The record did not clearly identify which of the pleaded deficiencies related to the original petition and which related to the served copy, and no clear factual finding was returned on whether the served copy was a true copy within the meaning of the Act.
Conclusion: The matter on this issue was remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The challenge under Section 81(3) was not finally rejected.
Issue (ii): Whether a candidate referred to only in an annexure, and not in the body of the election petition, was required to be impleaded under Section 82(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Analysis: Section 82(b) requires impleadment only of a candidate against whom allegations of corrupt practice are made in the petition. The Court read Sections 82 and 83 harmoniously and held that annexures may, in appropriate cases, form part of the petition for the limited purpose of testing whether the served copy is a true copy, but that principle does not automatically convert allegations found only in an annexure into allegations made in the petition for all purposes. Since no allegation of corrupt practice was made in the body of the petition against the candidate in question, the annexure could not be treated as making him a necessary respondent.
Conclusion: Non-impleadment of that candidate did not vitiate the election petition.
Final Conclusion: The impleadment objection failed, but the matter was sent back for reconsideration of compliance with the requirement of a true copy served on the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: A candidate is required to be joined under Section 82(b) only when allegations of corrupt practice are made against him in the election petition itself, and annexed material does not, by itself, create such a pleading for all purposes; separately, non-compliance with the true-copy requirement under Section 81(3) remains a distinct ground requiring factual determination.
TaxTMI 
