IMPORTANT POINT
The election petition was dismissed for being filed beyond the 45-day limit set by the Representation of People Act, 1951, with no provision for condonation of delay.

JUDGMENT :

RAJAN ROY, J.

1. Heard Mr. Siddharth Luthra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Prashant Singh Atal, Mr. Amit Jaiswal, Dr. Pooja Singh and Mr. Vijay Vikram Singh for the election-petitioner.

2. This Election Petition has been filed by the petitioner-Maneka Sanjay Gandhi challenging election of the returned candidate-Rambhual Nishad as Member of Parliament from Sultanpur 38-Lok Sabha constituency and that the same be declared as null and void and be set aside.

3. It is admitted case of the petitioner herein that the returned candidate was elected on 04.06.2024 and the result of was declared on 06.06.2024. This election petition has been filed on 27.07.2024.

4. As per Section 81 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred as ‘Act 1951’) such an election petition can be filed 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.

5. The election petition has apparently been filed beyond the period of 45 days prescribed in Section 81 of the Act 1951. Section 86 of the Act 1951 provides that the High Court shall dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provision of Section 81 or Section 82 or Section 117 of the Act 1951.

6. Apparently, Section 86 (1) of the Act 1951 referred hereinabove is mandatory and in the event an election petition is filed beyond the period of 45 days prescribed in Section 81 of the Act 1951 the High Court does not have any option but to dismiss the election petition in view of provision contained in Section 86 (1) of the Act 1951. There is no provision under the Act 1951 which permits condonation of such delay and extension of the limitation proscribed in Section 81 of the Act 1951 on any ground.

7. On being confronted, Mr. Luthra who joined the proceedings through Video Conferencing and argued the election petition submitted that the law has evolved and now Section 33-A has been added in the Act 1951 which requires a disclosure by the candidate about the criminal cases against him. The said provision gives a corresponding right to the elector etc. to information with regard to the person whom he is required to vote for. This right, according to him, is in fact part of the constitutional right as held in various decisions and in this context he relied upon decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Vidyacharan Shukla vs. Khubchand Baghel and others, (1964) 6 SCR 129, Hukumdev Narain Yadav vs. Lalit narain Mishra, (1974) 2 SCC 133, Hari Shanker Tripathi vs. Shiv Harsh and Others, (1976) 1 SCC 897, Mangu Ram vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (1976) 1 SCC 392, Bengal Chemists & Druggists Assn. vs. Kalyan Chowdhury, (2018) 3 SCC 41, Krishnamoorthy vs. Sivakumar and others, (2015) 3 SCC 467, Union of India vs. Assn. for Democratic Reforms and another, (2002) 5 SCC 294, People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and another vs. Union of India and another, (2003) 4 SCC 399, Lily Thomas vs. Union of India and others, (2013) 7 SCC 653, Resurgence India vs. Election Commission of India and another, (2014) 14 SCC 189, Public Interest Foundation and others vs. Union of India and another, (2019) 3 SCC 224, N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123 and Gopal Sardar vs. Karuna Sardar, (2004) 4 SCC 252. Relying upon the same, he also contended that much water has flown down the river and the law has evolved immensely since the decision in the case of Hukumdev Narain Yadav (supra) and the said decision as also the later decisions following it had not taken into consideration the insertion of Section 33-A in the Act 1951 and its impact. His submission was that the returned candidate had not disclosed four criminal cases pending against him and had submitted a false affidavit. It was also his submission that limitation should not legalize such illegal non-disclosures, as, ultimately the electio