1. Interpretation of Section 81, Representation of the People Act — Limitation for election petitions challenging uncontested declarations. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2006 Supreme(SC) 1320
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.K. SABHARWAL, C.J. AND C.K. THAKKER AND R.Y. RAVEENDRAN, JJ.
YOUARAJ RAI AND OTHERS - Appellants;
Versus
CHANDER BAHADUR KARKI - Respondent.
Civil Appeals No. 8250 of 2004 with Nos. 8253 and 8255 of 2004
Decided on December 15, 2006
Advocates appeared
R.N. Mittal and V.A. Mohta, Senior Advocates (Puneet Mittal, Pawan Mittal, Sandeep Gupta and Arvind Kr. Gupta, Advocates, with them) for the Appellants;
A. Mariaputham, Ms Aruna Mathur and Ms Mini Nair (for Arputham, Aruna & Co.), Advocates, for the Respondent.
Limitation for filing an election petition under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, begins from the date the specific returned candidate is declared elected. The extended limitation for multiple candidates applies only to multi-member constituencies or upper house elections, not single-member assembly seats.
Headnote:(A) Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Section 81 - Presentation of election petitions - Limitation period - Determination of date of election of returned candidate - Section 67-A - Date of election defined as the date on which a candidate is declared by the Returning Officer to be elected - Election petition must be filed within forty-five days from the date of election of the returned candidate - In uncontested elections, limitation begins from the date the Returning Officer declares the candidate elected (Paras 14, 15, 18, 26).
(B) Interpretation of Section 81 - Second part of Section 81 dealing with multiple returned candidates with different election dates - Applicable only to elections to Legislative Council of a State or Council of States where multiple candidates are elected from the same electorate, or former multi-member constituencies which no longer exist - Not applicable to single-member constituencies of a Legislative Assembly or House of the People (Paras 19, 20, 23, 24, 26).
(C) Meaning of "election" for purpose of limitation - "Election" denotes one election held in one specific constituency and not the entirety of elections held in a State - Cause of action arises when the specific candidate is declared successful; limitation cannot be linked to result declarations in other constituencies (Paras 29, 31).
Facts of the case:
Nominations for three Assembly constituencies were rejected as defective. The Returning Officer declared a single remaining candidate elected uncontested on a specific date. Other constituencies in the State underwent polling and results were declared on a later date. Election petitions were filed after the 45-day window from the uncontested declaration date but within 45 days of the general state-wide result declaration date. The High Court dismissed the petitions as barred by limitation.
Findings of Court:
The High Court correctly held that the relevant date for calculation of the period of limitation was the date of election of the returned candidate. Since the petitions were filed beyond forty-five days from that date, they were barred by limitation.
Issues: Whether the limitation period for filing an election petition under Section 81 of the Act starts from the date the specific returned candidate is declared elected (uncontested) or from the date of declaration of results for the last constituency in a general state-wide election.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 81 provides that the limitation for filing a petition is 45 days from the date of election of the returned candidate. The provision regarding "the later of those two dates" applies only to multi-member constituencies or elections to upper houses where multiple candidates are elected from one electorate. In single-member assembly elections, "election" refers to the contest in one specific constituency. A candidate's cause of action arises upon the declaration of the result for that specific constituency, and limitation cannot be stretched to cover the duration of general elections across a State.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Dispute over whether limitation runs from date of returned candidate's election or from later general election results. (Para 9 , 10 )
3. Second part of Section 81 applies only to multi-member constituencies, not to Legislative Assembly elections. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 )
4. Limitation under Section 81 runs from date of election of returned candidate, not from later declaration of other results. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 )
6. What is the period of limitation for filing an election petition under Section 81?
Forty-five days from the date of election of the returned candidate. (Para 15 , 16 )
7. Does the second part of Section 81 apply to elections for a Legislative Assembly?
No, it applies only to elections for Legislative Council of a State or Council of States where multiple candidates are elected. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 24 , 25 , 26 )
8. When does limitation start for an uncontested election?
Limitation starts on the date the Returning Officer declares the candidate elected under Section 53 or Section 66. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 22 )
9. Can limitation for challenging an uncontested election be extended by reference to results of other constituencies?
No, the limitation period is specific to each constituency and cannot be extended by later results of other constituencies. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 )
Judgment
C.K. THAKKER, J. - Appeals admitted.
2. All the above three appeals raise an interesting and important question of law as to interpretation of Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").
3. In all these appeals, facts are more or less similar. The Election Commission of India issued a notification on 16 - 3 - 2004 for holding general election to the Legislative Assembly for the State of Sikkim. Total constituencies were 32. A programme was published which provided various stages of election. 23 - 4 - 2004 was the last date for filing nomination papers, 24 - 4 - 2004 was fixed for scrutiny of nomination papers, 26 - 4 - 2004 was the last date for withdrawal of candidatures, 10 - 5 - 2004 was the date of poll, if necessary, and date of counting and declaration of results was fixed as 17 - 5 - 2004. The appellants filed their nomination papers from 12 - Wak Assembly Constituency, 14 - Melli Assembly Constituency and 13 - Damthang Assembly Constituency respectively on 23 - 4 - 2004. When nomination papers were scrutinised on the next date i.e. 24 - 4 - 2004, they were found to be defective and hence all their nomination papers were rejected. The resultant effect was that on 26 - 4 - 2004 which was the last date for withdrawal of candidature, in all the above three constituencies, only one candidate was in the field. The Returning Officer, therefore, declared the first respondent in all the matters elected (uncontested). In respect of other constituencies, however, polling was held on 10 - 5 - 2004 and after counting of votes, results were declared on 17 - 5 - 2004.
4. All the three appellants filed election petitions in the High Court of Sikkim (Election Tribunal) on 25 - 6 - 2004. Notices were issued to the respondent returned candidates and they appeared. A preliminary objection was raised by the returned candidates as to maintainability of petitions on the ground of limitation. It was contended that in accordance with the provisions of Section 81 of the Act, an election petition could be presented calling in question any election of a successful candidate within a period of forty - five days from the date of election of the returned candidate. Since the returned candidates were declared elected (uncontested) on 26 - 4 - 2004, election petitions could be filed only within a period of forty - five days from that date i.e. 26 - 4 - 2004. Petitions were admittedly filed on 25 - 6 - 2004 and thus they are barred by limitation. The case of the election petitioners, on the other hand, was that date of poll was 10 - 5 - 2004 and date of publication of results of election under Section 73 of the Act was 17 - 5 - 2004. For all material purposes, therefore, relevant date was 17 - 5·2004 and not 26 - 4 - 2004 and in view of that fact, election petitions were within limitation.
5. Considering the controversy between the parties and a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of petitions on the ground of limitation, the High Court raised a preliminary issue as under -
"Whether the election petition is barred by the law of limitation as prescribed under Section 81 of the Act?"
6. The High Court then heard the learned counsel for the parties, considered the relevant provisions of the Act and other laws, referred to the decisions cited at the Bar and held that the relevant date of commencement of limitation for the purpose of challenging the election of returned candidates (uncontested) was 26 - 4 - 2004 and not 17 - 5 - 2004 as contended by the election petitioners. Election petitions were, therefore, barred by limitation. The High Court, accordingly, dismissed all the petitions with costs.
7. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court, all the appellants have filed these appeals under Section 116 - A of the Act. Notice was issued on 6 - 1 - 2005. The appeals were also ordered to be posted for hearing.
8.We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
9. The
