REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6269  OF 2008             

G.V. Sreerama Reddy & Anr.          .... Appellant(s)

Versus

Returning Officer & Ors.       .... Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T  

P. Sathasivam, J.

1) This  appeal,  under  Section  116A  of  the  

Representation of the People Act, 1951, is directed against  

the  order  dated  19.09.2008  of  the  High  Court  of  

Karnataka at Bangalore in Election Petition No. 4 of 2008  

in and by which the High Court upheld the objection of  

the Registry that there was no proper presentation of the  

election  petition  in  terms  of  Section  81  (1)  of  the  

1

Representation  of  the  People  Act,  1951,  (hereinafter  

referred  to  as  “the  Act”),  consequently  dismissed  the  

election petition.  

2) Election  to  Constituency  No.  140,  Bagepalli,  

Karnataka Legislative Assembly was held in the General  

Elections conducted in the State in 2008.  Appellant No.1  

was the candidate of the CPM party.  Appellant No.2 was  

his  election  agent.   Respondent  No.1  is  the  Returning  

Officer  of  Bagepalli  Legislative  Assembly  Constituency.  

Respondent No.2 is the Congress candidate who has been  

declared  elected  in  the  election  held  on  10.05.2008.  

Respondent  No.3  is  the  Observer  appointed  by  the  

Election Commission of India.  

3) According  to  the  appellants,  election  was  held  on  

10.05.2008  and  counting  took  place  on  25.05.2008.  

Initially,  the  Media  Officer  appointed  by  the  Election  

Commission announced appellant No.1 as the successful  

candidate and declared him elected.   When the election  

agents and counting agents of appellant No.1 had left the  

2

place  of  counting,  an  application  for  re-counting  was  

submitted  by  the  second  respondent  and  thereafter,  

second respondent was declared elected.  The appellants  

filed an election petition under Section 81 of the Act on  

various grounds pointing out large-scale irregularities and  

illegalities  committed  by  respondent-authorities  in  the  

voting and the illegalities of allowing the recounting after  

announcing the declaration of appellant No.1 as elected.  

4) On  06.07.2008,  the  first  appellant,  through  his  

advocate, Shri Shiva Reddy presented the election petition  

before the Registrar (Judicial),  High Court of Karnataka.  

The Registry of the High Court put up an office objection  

that as the appellants were not present at the time of filing  

of  the  election  petition,  the  presentation  of  the  papers  

were not in accordance with Section 81 of the Act and as  

such there was no proper filing of  the election petition.  

Based on the office objection, the matter was placed before  

the learned Single Judge of the High Court dealing with  

the election petition and arguments were heard.  By the  

3

impugned order,  the learned Single Judge based on the  

recorded  statement  of  Registrar  (Judicial)  dated  

07.07.2008  that  “petitioners  were  not  present  while  

presenting  this  petition”  and  finding  that  it  was  not  a  

proper presentation in terms of Section 81, dismissed the  

election  petition.   Aggrieved  by  the  said  order,  the  

appellants have filed this appeal before this Court.

5) We have heard Mr. P.R. Ramasesh, learned counsel  

appearing  for  the  appellants  and  Dr.  Sushil  Balwada,  

learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  contesting  second  

respondent.  

6) Since  the  election  petition  was  dismissed  at  the  

threshold on the alleged ground of improper filing, there is  

no need to traverse various averments made therein.  The  

only question to be considered by this Court is whether  

the election petition as presented was in accordance with  

Section 81 (1) of the Act and whether the High Court was  

right in dismissing the same as it was not presented by  

the candidate or elector?    

4

7) Part  VI  of  the  Act  relates  to  disputes  regarding  

elections.  Chapter II therein speaks about presentation of  

election petitions to the High Court.  Section 80 mandates  

that no election shall be called in question except by an  

election  petition  presented  in  accordance  with  the  

provisions of Part VI.  Section 81 relates to presentation of  

election petitions which reads thus:

“Presentation  of  petitions.— (1)  An  election  petition  calling in question any election may be presented on one  or  more  of  the  grounds  specified  in  sub-section  (1)  of  section 100 and section 101 to the High Court by any  candidate at such election or any elector within forty-five  days from, but not earlier than the date of election of the  returned  candidate  or  if  there  are  more  than  one  returned  candidate  at  the  election  and  dates  of  their  election are different, the later of those two date.

Explanation.-  In  this  sub-section,  “elector”  means  a  person who was entitled to vote at the election to which  the  election  petition  relates,  whether  he  has  voted  at  such election or not.

(2)  Omitted  by  Act  47  of  1966  with  effect  from  14.12.1966.

(3)  Every  election petition  shall  be  accompanied  by  as  many copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned  in the petition and every such copy shall be attested by  the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy  of the petition.”

5

Sub-section  (1)  makes  it  clear  that  any  challenge  or  

dispute relating to  an election may be presented in the  

form  of  an  election  petition  highlighting  the  grounds  

specified in sub-section (1) of Sections 100 and 101.  It  

further mandates that the election petition is to be filed  

only before the High Court having jurisdiction either by  

any candidate or any elector within the prescribed time.  

As per sub-section (1), election petition is to be filed within  

45  days  from  the  date  of  election  of  the  returned  

candidate.   

8) Sub-section (1) also makes it clear that the election  

can  be  challenged  not  only  by  any  candidate  of  such  

election but also even an elector who was entitled to vote  

at  the  election  to  which  the  election  petition  relates  

irrespective of the fact that whether he has voted at such  

election or not.  Sub-section (3) mandates that depending  

on the number of respondents mentioned in the petition,  

such  required  copies  duly  attested  by  the  election  

6

petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the  

petition shall be furnished.  

9) Learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  appellants  

submitted that in the light of the language used in sub-

section (1)  there is  no compulsion/obligation to  present  

the election petition by the candidate himself.   In other  

words,  according  to  him,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  

election petitioner had duly executed a vakalatnama, in  

favour of his advocate, he is empowered to present it to  

the  authorized  officer  of  the  Registry.   It  is  further  

contended that presentation of the election petition by a  

candidate or elector is not mandatory and if it is presented  

by  his  advocate  duly  authorized,  the  same  is  a  proper  

presentation in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 81 of  

the Act.  It is also contended that in cases of substantial  

compliance and where it is shown that absence was not to  

harm the respondent’s case and certain exigencies existed  

which made the presence difficult,  the court should not  

dismiss  the  petition  merely  for  non-compliance  with  

7

Section 81 (1)  of  the  Act.   On the  other  hand,  learned  

counsel appearing for the contesting second respondent-  

successful  candidate  submitted  that  in  view  of  the  

language used in sub-section (1), it is mandatory that the  

candidate or elector is to personally present it before the  

High Court.  In view of the endorsement by the Registrar  

(Judicial)  stating  that  the  petitioners  (appellants  herein)  

were not present while presenting the election petition, the  

impugned order  of  the High Court  dismissing the same  

cannot be faulted with.  

10) A  close  look  of  Section  81  reveals  that  the  two  

remaining Sub-sections after the amendment introduced  

by Act 47 of 1966, i.e. (1) and (3) deal with two distinct,  

but  inter-related  issues.  Sub-section  (1)  deals  with  the  

necessary  requirements  of  any  petition  challenging  an  

election,  and  Sub-section  (3)  deals  with  additional  

requirements as to the petition presented.

11) Sub-section  (1)  has  five  components,  (i)  the  

qualification of the petitioner, i.e. he/she must be either “a  

8

candidate at such election” or an “elector”; (ii) the petition  

must  be  presented  ‘by’  the  petitioner;  (iii)  the  petition  

must be based “on one or more of the grounds specified in  

sub-section (1) of section 100 and section 101; (iv) it must  

be  presented  in  the  High  Court;  and  (v)  it  must  be  

presented within 45 days from, but not earlier than the  

date of election of the returned candidate, or if there are  

more  than  one  returned  candidate  at  the  election  and  

dates of their election are different, the later of those two  

dates.

12) Therefore,  all  these five requirements are extremely  

specific and clear. This inference is further strengthened  

by Section 86(1) which provides that the “High Court shall  

dismiss an election petition which does not comply with  

the provisions of Section 81”.

13) This Court, on previous occasions, had the chance to  

interpret  Section  81(1).  It  must  be  noted  that  the  

Representation of the People Act is a special statute, and a  

self-contained regime. In K. Venkateswara Rao and Anr.  

9

vs.  Bekkam Narasimha Reddi and Ors., (1969) 1 SCR  

679,  a question arose whether 45 days period provided  

under  Section  81(1)  could  be  condoned  through  the  

application  of  the  Limitation  Act?   After  examining  the  

relevant provisions of the Act, this Court held:

“…the Limitation Act cannot apply to proceedings  like  an  election  petition  inasmuch  as  the  Representation of the People Act is a complete and  self-contained  code  which  does  not  admit  of  the  introduction of  the principles or the provisions of  law contained in the Indian Limitation Act.”

14) This  has  been  reiterated  in  Hukumdev  Narain  

Yadav vs.  Lalit  Narain  Mishra,  (1974)  2  SCC  133,  

wherein this Court has again read the requirements under  

Section 81 strictly,  while  stating  that  the  Act  is  a  self-

contained special statute.

15) While interpreting a special statute, which is a self-

contained code, the Court must consider the intention of  

the  Legislature.  The reason for  this  fidelity  towards the  

Legislative intent is that the statute has been enacted with  

a  specific  purpose  which  must  be  measured  from  the  

10

wording of the statute strictly construed. The  preamble  

of the Representation of the People Act makes it clear that  

for the conduct of elections of the Houses of Parliament or  

the  Legislature  of  each State,  the  qualification  and dis-

qualification for membership of those Houses, the corrupt  

practice  and  other  offences  in  connection  with  such  

allegations  the  Act  was  enacted  by  the  Parliament.   In  

spite of  existence of adequate provisions in the Code of  

Civil Procedure relating to institution of a suit, the present  

Act contains elaborate provisions as to disputes regarding  

elections.  It not only prescribes how election petitions are  

to  be  presented  but  it  also  mandates  what  are  the  

materials  to  be  accompanied  with  the  election  petition,  

details regarding parties, contents of the same, relief that  

may  be  claimed  in  the  petition.   How  trial  of  election  

petitions  are  to  be  conducted  has  been  specifically  

provided in Chapter III of Part VI.  In such circumstances,  

we  are  of  the  view  that  the  provisions  have  to  be  

interpreted as mentioned by the Legislature.   

11

16) One  can  discern  the  reason  why  the  petition  is  

required to be presented by the petitioner personally. An  

election  petition  is  a  serious  matter  with  a  variety  of  

consequences.  Since  such  a  petition  may  lead  to  the  

vitiation of a democratic process, any procedure provided  

by an election statute must be read strictly. Therefore, the  

Legislature  has  provided  that  the  petition  must  be  

presented “by” the petitioner himself, so that at the time of  

presentation,  the  High  Court  may  make  preliminary  

verification  which  ensure  that  the  petition  is  neither  

frivolous nor vexatious.  

17) In  this  context,  earlier  decisions  of  this  Court  

regarding  the  interpretation  of  Section  81(1)  must  be  

understood.  In  Sheo  Sadan  Singh vs.  Mohan  Lal  

Gautam,  1969 (1)  SCC 408, in paragraph 4,  this court  

held that:

“The  High  Court  has  found  as  a  fact  that  the  election petition was presented to the registry by an  advocate’s  clerk in the immediate presence of  the  petitioner.   Therefore, in substance though not in  form,  it  was  presented  by  the  petitioner  himself.  

12

Hence  the  requirement  of  the  law  was  fully  satisfied.”

Learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  submitted  that  even  

though the “form” of the provision was not followed, i.e.  

the  petition  was  not  presented  “by”  the  petitioner  

“personally”, in “substance”, it was followed.  It is to be  

noted that in Sadan Singh’s case, it is not in dispute that  

the  petition  was  presented  to  the  Registry  in  the  

immediate presence of the petitioner.  In other words, the  

officer authorized by the High Court had an opportunity to  

verify  him but  in  the  case  on hand,  admittedly,  it  was  

presented only by the advocate and the petitioners were  

not present before the Registrar (Judicial).  In view of the  

same, the said decision is not helpful to the appellant’s  

case.  This  is  because  the  petitioner  therein  had,  in  

substance,  complied  with  the  provision  as  strictly  

construed.

18) Learned counsel appearing for the appellants relied  

on  a  decision  of  the  High  Court  of  Rajasthan  (Jaipur  

13

Bench) in Bhanwar Singh vs. Navrang Singh, AIR 1987  

Raj 63.  In the case before the learned Single Judge, the  

election  petition  had  been  presented  by  one  Rajendra  

Prasad, Advocate and not by the petitioner himself.  It was  

argued by learned counsel for the petitioner therein that  

election petition had been validly presented under Section  

81 (1) of the Act because Section 81 (1) of the Act only  

makes a provision as to who can file an election petition  

and does not deal with as to who should actually present  

it before the Registry.  It is further submitted that Section  

81 of the Act nowhere provides that the petitioner should  

be physically  present  at  the time of  presentation of  the  

election  petition.   The  learned  Single  Judge,  after  

adverting to the words - “by”, “presented” concluded that  

these words used in Section 81(1) of the Act have to be  

given wide meaning and found that election petition filed  

through an advocate without the presence of candidate or  

elector  is  valid.   We  are  unable  to  accept  the  said  

conclusion.  

14

19)  We  have  already  pointed  out  that  in  spite  of  

provisions in CPC and Evidence Act relating to institution  

of suit and recording of evidence etc. this Act provides all  

the details starting from the presentation of the election  

petition ending with the decision of the High Court.  In  

such  circumstances,  it  is  but  proper  to  interpret  the  

language used by the Legislature and implement the same  

accordingly.   The  challenge  to  an  election  is  a  serious  

matter. The object of presenting an election petition by a  

candidate  or  elector  is  to  ensure  genuineness  and  to  

curtail vexatious litigations.  If we consider sub-section (1)  

along with the other provisions in Chapter II and III, the  

object and intent of the Legislature is that this provision  

i.e. Section 81(1) is to be strictly adhered to and complied  

with.  

20) In view of the endorsement by the Registrar (Judicial)  

on  07.07.2008  that  the  election  petition  was  presented  

only by an advocate and not by the election petitioners,  

we accept the reasoning of the High Court in dismissing  

15

the election petition.   We further hold that as per sub-

section  (1)  of  Section  81,  election  petition  is  to  be  

presented  by  any  candidate  or  elector  relating  to  the  

election personally  to  the  authorized officer  of  the  High  

Court and failure to adhere such course would be contrary  

to the said provision and in that event the election petition  

is  liable  to  be  dismissed  on  the  ground  of  improper  

presentation.   Since,  the  High  Court  has  correctly  

dismissed the election petition, the civil appeal fails and  

the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.      

...…………………………………J.  (D.K. JAIN)   

...…………………………………J.     (P. SATHASIVAM)  

 NEW DELHI; AUGUST 11, 2009.    

16

17