Procedural Rigors Of S.81 RP Act Don't Apply To Amended Petitions That Only Reduce Prayers: Punjab & Haryana High Court - 2025-09-18

P&H High Court Dismisses Plea to Reject Amended Election Petition, Cites Lack of Prejudice

Chandigarh - The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed an application filed by a returned candidate seeking the rejection of an amended election petition, ruling that strict procedural requirements under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, do not apply when an amendment merely restricts or reduces the scope of the original challenge. The Court emphasized that since the amendment caused no prejudice to the respondent, the technical objections raised were without merit.

The decision came in the case of Brijendra Singh vs Devender Chattar Bhuj Attri (Election Petition No. 7 of 2024), where the returned candidate, Devender Attri, filed a second application to dismiss the petition on procedural grounds after the petitioner, Brijendra Singh, was allowed to amend it.

Background of the Case

The election petition was initially filed by Brijendra Singh challenging the election of Devender Attri. The respondent (Attri) first moved an application (CM No.16-E) to dismiss the original petition, which the Court dismissed on May 23, 2025. This order was never challenged.

Subsequently, the petitioner was granted permission to amend the election petition. The amendment's sole purpose was to reduce the number of prayers and confine the challenge to the improper rejection of 215 postal votes. Following this, the respondent filed a fresh application (CM No. 36-E) under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, read with Sections 81, 83, and 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, seeking dismissal of the amended petition.

Arguments from Both Sides

Respondent's Contentions:

Senior Advocate Shri Satya Pal Jain, appearing for the returned candidate, argued for dismissal based on several procedural non-compliances, including: - The copy of the amended petition served was not attested as a "true copy" by the petitioner. - The supplied copy was not signed by the petitioner. - It was not filed personally by the petitioner but through his counsel, violating Section 81 of the RP Act. - An insufficient number of copies were supplied, as copies were not provided for all 19 respondents (most of whom were ex-parte).

Petitioner's Submissions:

Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Abhimanyu Tiwari, countered that the application was a tactic to delay proceedings. He argued that since the amendment only reduced the petition's scope and did not introduce new grounds, strict procedural compliance applicable to an original petition was not warranted. He stressed that no prejudice was caused to the respondent, who had not even filed a written statement to the original petition but got an opportunity to do so after the amendment.

Court's Reasoning and Legal Analysis

The High Court meticulously analyzed the respondent's objections in light of established legal precedents and the specific context of the amendment. The Court distinguished the present case from precedents that mandate strict compliance, noting that those cases typically involved original petitions or amendments that expanded the scope of the challenge.

On Attestation and Service of Copies:

The Court held that the primary purpose of serving a "true copy" is to ensure the respondent can understand and defend against the allegations. Citing the Supreme Court's Constitution Bench rulings in Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar v. Roop Singh Rathore and T M Jacob v. C Poulose , the Court reiterated the principle of "substantial compliance."

"The word 'copy' does not mean an absolutely exact copy. It means a copy so true that nobody can by any possibility misunderstand it. The test whether the copy is a true one is whether any variation from the original is calculated to mislead an ordinary person."

The judgment highlighted that the respondent never alleged that the copy served was different, altered, or misleading. Since the amendment only reduced the grounds of challenge, no prejudice could be claimed.

On Personal Presentation and Supply of Copies to Ex-parte Respondents:

The Court found the objection regarding the amended petition not being filed personally by the petitioner to be unsustainable. It reasoned:

"Section 81(1) of the RP Act does not require that the amended election petition, which restricts, reduces, or deletes the prayers, must also be presented personally by the petitioner..."

Similarly, the Court rejected the argument that copies needed to be served on respondents who had already been proceeded against ex-parte, calling it an unnecessary and environmentally unfriendly exercise. It clarified that these respondents had shown no interest in contesting, and should they choose to re-engage, copies could be supplied then.

Final Decision

The Court concluded that the amended petition did not violate Sections 81 or 83 of the RP Act, and therefore, there were no grounds for its dismissal under Section 86. It observed that the respondent had, in fact, benefitted from the amendment by gaining an opportunity to file a written statement and facing a narrower legal challenge.

Finding no merit in the application, the Court dismissed CM No. 36-E, allowing the election petition to proceed to trial on the limited ground of recounting postal votes.