Case Brief
Dr. Vijay Laxmi Sadho v. Jagdish– Appeal (civil) 2720 of 2000
Deciding Authority
Supreme Court
Name of the Judges
S.V.Patil , R.C.Lahoti JJ.
Date of Judgment
5th January 2001
Facts of the Case
In the elections to the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly, held in 1998, the appellant was declared elected from Assembly Constituency No. 290, Maheshwar. The defeated candidate (Respondent herein) filed an election petition challenging his election on various ground of commission of corrupt practices, detailed in paragraphs 5 to 17 of the election petition. The election petition had been drawn-up in Hindi language. The affidavit filed in support of the election petition was also drawn up in Hindi language. The main objection projected by the appellant in IA 2806/99 to the maintainability of the election petition was that since the affidavit filed in support of allegations of corrupt practice was not drawn up in the manner prescribed by Section 83(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) read with Rule 94-A (hereinafter ‘the Rules’) in the prescribed form No.25, the defect was fatal and the election petition was liable to be dismissed under Section 86(1) of the Act for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 83 of the Act.
The precise objection raised in I.A. No.5957 of 1999 was to the effect that since election petition had been drawn-up in Hindi language and not English language the same was liable to be dismissed for not having been drawn up in English language as required by Rule 2(b) of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules (hereinafter referred to as ‘the High Court Rules’). Both applications were resisted by the election petitioner. Vide order dated 4th February, 2000 a learned Single Judge of the High Court rejected both applications. Thus, the appeal.
Judgment
Mr. G.L. Sanghi, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that there was
material difference between the verification of the affidavit filed in support of the election petition and the verification of the election petition which rendered the election petition defective and thus liable to be dismissed. Elaborating the objection, it was submitted that in the affidavit dated 11th January, 1999 filed along with the election petition in paragraph KA, the election petitioner had verified the facts relating to commission of corrupt practice stated in paragraphs 5 to 17 of the petition as true to his “personal knowledge” but in paragraph KHA of the same affidavit, the election petitioner had verified the contents of same “information received by him”. It was submitted that this variation in verifying the same facts, both on “personal knowledge” and on “information received”, being self-contradictory, rendered the affidavit as paragraphs 5 to 1 of the election petition as being based on “no affidavit” in the eye of law and such a defective affidavit could not be taken into account for trying allegations of corrupt practice in an election petition and, therefore, the election petition was liable to be dismissed in limine under Section 8 of the Act.
According to learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand, none of the grounds raised by the appellant in both the applications could warrant dismissal of an election petition under Section 86 (1) of the Act and the High Court thus rightly dismissed both the applications.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court remarked that an election petition is liable to be dismissed in limine under Section 86(1) of the Act only if the election petition does not comply with either the provisions of ‘Section 81 or Section 82 or Section 107 of the Act’.
In F.A. Sapa and others v. Singora and others (1991) 3 SCC 375 a three Judge Bench of this Court specifically dealt with an issue concerning defects in the verification of an election petition as well as of defects in the affidavit accompanying an election petition wherein allegations of corrupt practice are made. After considering the provisions of Sections 83 and 86 of the Act, as also the requirements of Form No.25 prescribed by Rule 94-A of the Rules and relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure , it was held :
“From the text of the relevant provisions of the R.P. Act, Rule 94-A and Form 25 as well as Order 6 Rule 15 and Order 19 Rule 3 of the Code and the resume of the case law discussed above it clearly emerges (i) a defect in the verification, if any, can be cured (ii) it is not essential that the verification clause at the foot of the petition or the affidavit accompanying the same should disclose the grounds or sources of information in regard to the averments or allegations which are based on information believed to be true (iii) if the respondent desires better particulars in regard to such averments or allegations, he may call for the same in which case the petitioner may be required to supply the same and (iv) the defect in the affidavit in the prescribed Form 25 can be cured.”
This judgment was followed by a Division Bench of this Court in H.D. Revanna v. G. Puttaswamy Gowda and others (1999) 2 SCC 217. The learned Single Judge of the High Court was, therefore, perfectly justified in dismissing I.A. No.2806 of 1999.
The court now drew its consideration to the objections raised in I.A. No.5957 of 1999 seeking dismissal of the election petition on the ground that the election petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof had been drawn-up in Hindi language and not in English language. The argument raised in the High Court and reiterated at the Bar before the court by Mr. Sanghi is that Rule 2(b) of the High Court Rules provides that every election petition shall be written in English language and since the election petition filed by the respondent was written in Hindi and not English language, the same was liable to be dismissed for non-compliance with the said rule, in limine.
To appreciate the effect of non-compliance with Rule 2(b) of the High Court Rules, it is appropriate to notice some of the relevant statutory provisions at this stage. Rule 2 of the High Court Rules provides:
“2. Every Election petitions shall be –
- typewritten or printed fairly and legibly on white foolscap size paper of reasonable quality, one side of the paper only being used, leaving a quarter margin on the left and at least 1/2 inches open space on the top and bottom of each sheet; (b) written in the English language, numbering separately the paragraph thereof; (c) couched in proper language, and in conformity with section 81, 82 and 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.”
Rules framed by the High Court relating to trial of election petitions are only procedural in nature and do not constitute “substantive law”. Those Rules have to be read along with other statutory provisions to appreciate the consequences of non-compliance with the High Court Rules. Article 329(b) mandates that no election to either House of Parliament or to either House of the State Legislature can be called in question except through an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the legislature.
By a Notification dated 18th September, 1971 issued by the Governor of Madhya Pradesh, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (2) of Article 348 of the Constitution of India, with the previous consent of the President of India, authorised the use of Hindi language in all proceedings of the High Court other than for drawing up decrees, orders and judgments of the High Court, subject to certain conditions. The question whether an election petition drawn up in Hindi language is maintainable or not came up for consideration before a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Election Petition No. 9 of 1980 titled Devilal s/o. Shriram Khada v. Kinkar Narmada Prasad and others. While rejecting the challenge to the maintainability of the election petition drawn up in Hindi language, it was said:-
“Now it is true that Rule 2(b) of the aforesaid Rules does provide that every election petition shall be written in the English language. But in the absence of any provision in the Act or the Rules made thereunder, non compliance with Rule 2(b) of the aforesaid Rules cannot be a ground for dismissal of the petition under Section 86 of the Act.”
That apart, the defect of not filing an election petition in accordance with Rule 2(b) of the Rules is not one of the defects which falls either under Sections 81, 82 of 117 of the Act so as to attract the rigour of Section 86 of the Act as rightly held in Devilal’s case. Therefore the court held that the learned Single Judge of the High Court was right in rejecting application, I.A. No. 5957 of 1999 and holding that an election petition filed by the respondent could not be dismissed under Section 86(1) of the Act for alleged non compliance with Rule 2(b) of the High Court Rules relating to presentation of election petitions.
Decision
Thus, for what was stated above, the court was not persuaded to take a view different than the one taken by the High Court in the present case. The appeal had no merits. It failed and was accordingly dismissed but with no order as to costs.
Also the CJI requested the High Court to expeditiously dispose of the election petition.
Shubham Shandilya, 4th Year, B.B.A. LL.B., Symbiosis Law School, Pune