Back
2001 (2) JLJ 1
(SUPREME COURT)
Dr. A.S. Anand, C.J.I., R.C. Lahoti and Shivraj V. Patil, JJ.
Vijay Laxmi Sadho (Dr.) v. Jagdish
Civil Appeal No. 2720 of 2000: against the order of M.P. High Court passed
in Election Petition No. 21 of 1999; Decided on 5.1.2001.
(2) Representation of the People Act, 1951 -- Ss. 86 (1).81,82.107 and 83 (1) -- election petition -- liable to be dismissed in limine if it does not comply with provisions of Ss. 81, 82 or 107 -- non-compliance of provision under S. 83 (1) or of its proviso -- cannot result such dismissal.
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‘. The requirement of filing an affidavit along with an election petition, in the prescribed form, in support of allegations of corrupt practice is contained in section 83 (1) of the Act. Thus, an election petition is not liable to be dismissed in limine under section 86 of the Act, for alleged non-compliance with provisions of section 83 (1) of the Act or of its proviso. What other consequences, if any, may follow from an allegedly ‘defective‘ affidavit, is to be judged at the trial of an election petition but section 86 (1) of the Act in terms cannot be attracted to such a case. Order of High Court affirmed. [Para 9
(3) Representation of The People Act, 1951 -- Ss. 83 and 86 -- Rule 94A -- Form 25 -- Civil P.C., 1908 -- O. 6 R. 15 and O. 19 R. 3 -- defective‘ verification either in election petition or affidavit -- may be cured -- grounds or sources of information not disclosed -- respondent may ask for better particulars. (1991) 3 SCC 375 and (1999) 2 SCC 217 relied on. Order of High Court affirmed. [Para 10
(4) High Court Rules and Orders (M.P.) -- S. I Chap. III, R. 7 and S. 11, Chap. VII R. 9 -- election petition -- rules made for -- are procedural in nature-- non-compliance does not result in dismissal of election petition. (1975) 3 SCC 788 relied on. [Paras 12, 13 & 18
(5) Constitution of India -- Art. 348 (1) (a) and (2) -- Art. 348(1) (a) expressly deals with the language to be used in Supreme Court and in High Courts -- Art. 348 (2) carves out an exception. [Para 19
(6) Constitution of India -- Art. 348 (2) -- M.P. High Court Rules and Orders -- S.II Chap. VII R. 2(b) -- Governor notifying use of Hindi Language before the High Court -- R. 2(b) of the Rules to be read with notification -election petition cannot he dismissed if filed in Hindi language.
Under the said Notification, appeals, petitions, etc. could thus, be presented in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh drawn-up in the Hindi language, notwithstanding the provisions of High Court Rules. Rule 2(b) of the High Court Rules cannot be so construed as to render the constitutional provisions contained in Article 348(2) as ‘meaningless‘. Rule 2(b) of the High Court Rules has to be read along with the Notification issued by the Governor on 18th September, 1971 under Article 348 (2) of the Constitution and when so construed, it follows that an election petition may be filed in Hindi language and it cannot be dismissed at the threshold under section 86 of the Act for alleged non- compliance with rule 2(b) of the High Court Rules. E.P. No.9 of 1980 approved. 2000. (1) JLJ 108 overruled. [Paras 20 to 22
(7) Constitution of India -- Arts. 225 and 348(2) -- rules framed under Art. 225 -- are procedural in nature -- cannot effect import of constitutional provisions contained in Art. 348(2). 2000 (1) JLJ 108 overruled. [Para 23
(8) Precedent -- Bench of co-ordinate jurisdiction disagreeing with another Bench of co-ordinate jurisdiction -- proper course to maintain judicial discipline is to refer the case to larger Bench instead of leaving two conflicting views.
As the learned Single Judge was not in agreement with the view expressed in Devilal‘s case. it would have been proper, to maintain judicial discipline, to refer the matter to a larger Bench rather than to take a. different view. We note it with regret and distress that the said course was not followed. It is well settled that if a Bench of coordinate jurisdiction disagrees with another Bench of coordinate jurisdiction whether on the basis of "different arguments" or otherwise, on a question of law, it is appropriate that the matter be referred to a larger Bench for resolution of the issue rather than to leave two conflicting judgments to operate creating confusion. It is not proper to sacrifice certainty of law. Judicial decorum, no less than legal propriety forms the basis of judicial procedure and it must be respected at all costs. (1960) 3 SCR 578 relied on. [Paras 25 & 26
¼1½ ‘kiFki=&=qfViw.kZ&vfrfjDr ‘kiFki= Qkby djds ifj‘kksf/kr&,slk vfrfjDr ‘kiFki= vfHkys[k ij fy;k x;k&=qfV dk çfrdkj gqvkA ¿iSjk 6 ¼2½ yksd çfrfuf/kRo vf/kfu;e] 1951&/kkjk 86¼1½] 81] 82] 107 rFkk 83¼1½&fuokZpu vthZ&vkjaHk esa gh [kkfjt fd, tkus ;ksX; gS ;fn /kkjk 81] 82 vFkok 107 ds mica/kksa dk vuqikyu ugha fd;k x;k gS&/kkjk 83¼1½ vFkok blds ijarqd ds mica/kksa dk vuuqikyu&,slh [kkfjth esa ifj.kkfer ugha gks ldrkA vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 86¼1½ ds v/khu dkssbZ fuokZpu vthZ vkjaHk ls gh [kkfjt fd, tkus ;ksX; gS ;fn fuokZpu vthZ esa vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 81 ;k /kkjk 82 ;k /kkjk 107 ds mica/kksa dk vuqqikyu ugha gqvk gSA Hkz"V vkpj.k ds vfHkdFku ds leFkZu esa fuokZpu vthZ ds lkFk fofgr ç:i esa ‘kiFki= Qkby fd, tkus dh vis{kk] vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 83¼1½ esa varfoZ"V gSA bl çdkj] vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 83¼1½ vFkok blds ijarqd ds vfHkdfFkr vuuqikyu ds fy, dksbZ fuokZpu vthZ] vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 86 ds v/khu vkjaHk esa gh [kkfjt fd, tkus ;ksX; ugha gSA fdlh vfHkdfFkr ^=qfViw.kZ* ‘kiFki= ds ifj.kkeksa dk] ;fn dksbZ gksa] fuokZpu vthZ ds fopkj.k ds le; fofuf‘p; fd;k tkuk gksrk gS] fdarq ,sls ekeys esa vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 86¼1½ oLrqr% vkdf"kZr ugha gksxhA mPp U;k;ky; dk vkns‘k vfHkiq"VA ¿iSjk 9 ¼3½ yksd çfrfuf/kRo vf/kfu;e] 1951&/kkjk 83 rFkk 86&fu-94d&ç:i 25&flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908&vk-6 fu-15 rFkk vk- 19 fu-3&fuokZpu vthZ esa ;k ‘kiFki= esa =qfViw.kZ lR;kiu&ifj‘kksf/kr fd;k tk ldrk gS&vk/kkj vFkok tkudkjh dk L=ksr çdV ugha&çR;FkhZ csgrj fof‘kf"V;ksa dh ek¡x dj ldrk gSA ¼1991½ 3 ,l lh lh 375 rFkk ¼1999½ 2 ,l lh lh 217 voyafcrA mPp U;k;ky; dk vkns‘k vfHkiq"VA ¿iSjk 10 ¼4½ mPp U;k;ky; fu;e rFkk vkns‘k ¼e-ç-½&/kkjk 1 v/;k; fu-7 rFkk /kkjk 2 v/;k; 7 fu-9&fuokZpu vthZ&ds fy, fojfpr fu;e&çfØ;kRed Lo:I ds gSa&vuuqikyu dk ifj.kke fuokZpu vthZ dh [kkfjth ugha gks ldrkA ¼1975½ 3 ,l lh lh 788 voyafcrA ¿iSjk 12] 13 ,oa 18 ¼5½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku&vuq-348¼1½¼d½ rFkk ¼2½&vuq-348¼1½ ¼d½] vfHkO;Dr :i ls mPpre U;k;ky; rFkk mPp U;k;ky; esa ç;ksx fd, tkus dh Hkk"kk ds fo"k; esa gSa&vuq- 348¼2½ esa viokn of.kZr gSA ¼6½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku&vuq- 348¼2½&e-ç- mPp U;k;ky; fu;e rFkk vkns‘k&/kkjk 2 v/;k; 7 fu-2¼[k½&jkTiky }kjk mPp U;k;ky; ds le{k fganh Hkk"kk dk ç;ksx vf/klwfpr&fueksa ds fu;e 2 ¼[k½ dk ikB vf/klwpuk ds lkFk fd;k tkuk gksxk&fuokZpu vthZ] ;fn fganh Hkk"kk esa Qkby dh xbZ gS] [kkfjt ugha dh tk ldrhA bl çdkj] mPp U;k;ky; fu;eksa ds mica/k gksrs gq, Hkh] mDr vf/klwpuk ds v/khu e/; çns‘k mPp U;k;ky; esa fganh Hkk"kk esa fy[kh xbZ vihysa] ;kfpdk,¡ vkfn miLFkkfir dh tk ldrh FkhA mPp U;k;ky; fu;eksa ds fu;e 2 ¼[k½ dk vFkkZUo;u bl çdkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk fd ftlls vuqPNsn 348¼2½ esa varfoZ"V lkafo/kkfud mica/k ^fujFkZd* gks tk, mPp U;k;ky; fu;eksa ds fu;e 2¼[k½ dk ikB lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 348¼2½ ds v/khu jkT;iky }kjk 18 flracj 1971 dks tkjh dh xbZ vf/klwpuk ds lkFk djuk gksxk vkSj ml çdkj ls vFkkZUo;u djus dk ifj.kke ;g fudysxk fd fuokZpu vthZ fganh Hkk"kk eas Qkby dh tk ldrh gS rFkk ;g mPp U;k;ky; fu;eksa ds fu;e 2¼[k½ ds vfHkdfFkr vuuqikyu ds fy, vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 86 ds v/khu vkjaHk esa gh [kkfjt ugha dh tk ldrhA fuokZpu vthZ Ø-9 lu~ 1980 vuqeksfnrA 2000¼1½ ts ,y ts 108 myVk x;kA ¿iSjk 20 ls 22 ¼7½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku&vuq-225 rFkk 348¼2½&vuq- 225 ds v/khu fojfpr fu;e&çfØ;kRed Lo:Ik ds gSa&vuq- 348 ¼2½ esa varfoZ"V lakfo/kkfud mica/kksa ds egRo dks çHkkfor ugha dj ldrsA 2000¼1½ ts ,y ts 108 myVk x;kA ¿iSjk 23 ¼8½ iwoZ fu.kZ;&led{k vf/kdkfjrk dh U;k;ihB vU; led{k vf/kdkfjrk dh U;k;ihB ls folEer&Ukf;d vuq‘kklu cuk, j[kus ds fy, mfpr çfØ;k] nks fojks/kh n`f"Vdks.k nsus ds ctk; ekeyk c`grj U;k;ihB dks fufnZ"V fd;k tkuk gSA D;ksafd fo}ku ,dy U;k;/kh‘k] nsohyky ds ekeys esa O;Dr n`"Vdks.k ls lger ugha Fks] U;kf;d vuq‘kklu cuk, j[kus ds fy, fHkUu n`f"Vdks.k viuk, tkus ds ctk; ekeyk c`gÙkj U;k;ihB dks fufnZ"V fd;k tkuk mfpr gksrkA ge [ksn o nq%[k ds lkFk fVIi.kha djrs gSa fd mDr of.kZr vuqØe ugha viuk;k x;kA ;g lqLFkkfir gS fd ;fn dksbZ led{k vf/kdkfjrk dh U;k;ihB fof/k ds fdlh ç‘u ij] pkgs ^fHkUu rdks±* ds vk/kkj ij vFkok vU;Fkk] fdlh led{k vf/kdkfjrk dh U;k;ihB ls vlger gksrh gS] nks fojks/kh fu.kZ; çofrZr jgus ns dj laHkze l`ftr djus ds ctk; ;g leqfpr gksxk fd ç‘u ds lek/kku ds fy, ekeyk c`gÙkj U;k;ihB dks fufnZ"V fd;k tk,A fof/k dh lqfuf‘prrk dk R;kx mfpr ugha gSA U;kf;d e;kZnk ls vU;wu U;kf;d ‘kkyhurk] U;kf;d çfØ;k dk vk/kkj gS vkSj bldk vknj fdlh Hkh ewY; ij fd;k tkuk pkfg,A ¼1960½ 3 ,l lh vkj 578 voyafcrA ¿iSjk 25 ,oa 26
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against an order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated 4th February, 2000 rejecting applications (LA. Nos. 2806/99 and 5957/99) filed by the appellant, the returned candidate, seeking rejection of an election petition filed by the respondent challenging his election on various grounds contained in those application.
2. In the elections to the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly, held in 1998, the appellant was declared election 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. .
3. 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 94A (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.
4. The precise objection raised in IA. 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 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.
5. 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 or 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 paragraphs 5 to 17 of the election petition as being based on 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 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 86 of the Act.
6. A perusal of the record reveals that the election petitioner had later on, (possibly to meet the objection regarding defective affidavit) filed an additional affidavit in support of the allegations of corrupt practice verifying the facts stated in paragraphs 5 to 17 as based on his 'personal knowledge' and not on the basis of 'information received' from any other source. That affidavit appears to have been taken on record.
7. 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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
