Supreme Court mandates strict compliance with treasury challan rules for election petitions: Sitaram vs. Radhey Shyam Vishnav & Ors. (2018) INSC 182 (06 March 2018)

Date of the Judgment: 06 March 2018
Citation: (2018) INSC 182
Judges: Dipak Misra, CJI, A.M. Khanwilkar, J., D.Y. Chandrachud, J.
Can an election petition be dismissed if the treasury challan is not submitted along with the petition? The Supreme Court addressed this critical procedural question in a recent judgment. The Court held that the submission of a treasury challan along with an election petition is a mandatory requirement, and failure to do so will lead to the dismissal of the petition. This ruling clarifies the strict adherence required to the Rajasthan Municipalities Election Petition Rules, 2009.

Case Background

The case revolves around the election of the Chairperson of the Municipal Council, Kishangarh, Rajasthan. The election was held on 21.08.2015, where the appellant, Sitaram, secured 23 votes and was declared elected, while the 1st respondent, Radhey Shyam Vishnav, received 18 votes. Both candidates belonged to the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category, as the post was reserved for OBC candidates.

Radhey Shyam Vishnav filed an election petition challenging the election, alleging that 11 votes in favor of Sitaram were improperly counted due to identifying marks on the ballot papers. The petition also stated that a deposit of Rs. 1,000 was made as per the law.

Sitaram filed an application for rejection of the election petition, citing non-compliance with Rule 3(d) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Election Petition Rules, 2009, specifically regarding the non-submission of a treasury challan of Rs. 1,000 along with the election petition.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Election Tribunal rejected Sitaram’s application for rejection of the election petition, noting that the deposit was made on 16.08.2015, and the election petitioner had filed an application before the court to deposit the amount. The court held that the ground raised under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) was without merit.

Aggrieved by this order, Sitaram filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, reiterating the grounds urged before the Election Tribunal. The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition, stating that the issue of whether the election petition was liable to be rejected despite the subsequent submission of the challan within the period of limitation was not required to be examined. The High Court also directed that the writ petitioner was free to agitate all the defenses in his written statement.

Legal Framework

The core of this case lies in the interpretation of the Rajasthan Municipalities Election Petition Rules, 2009. Specifically, Rule 3(5)(d) of the 2009 Rules states:

“Rule 3(5). An election petition – (d) shall be accompanied by a treasury challan of rupees one thousand.”

Further, Rule 7(3) of the 2009 Rules stipulates:

“Rule 7. Decision of the Judge .- (3) The Judge shall dismiss an election petition, which does not comply with the provisions of these rules.”

These rules mandate that an election petition must be accompanied by a treasury challan of Rs. 1,000 and that non-compliance with this rule leads to the dismissal of the petition.

Arguments

The appellant, Sitaram, argued that Rule 3(5)(d) of the 2009 Rules is mandatory, requiring the election petition to be accompanied by a treasury challan of Rs. 1,000. Sitaram contended that the non-submission of the challan with the petition on 09.09.2015, as evidenced by the Election Tribunal’s order dated 16.09.2015 allowing the deposit, necessitates the dismissal of the election petition under Rule 7(3) of the 2009 Rules.

The 1st respondent, Radhey Shyam Vishnav, argued that the 2009 Rules stipulate the filing of a treasury challan for making a deposit, and there is a distinction between filing a treasury challan and making the deposit. He submitted that an order of the Court is necessary to make a deposit in the court as per the General Rules (Civil), 1986, prevalent in Rajasthan. Radhey Shyam Vishnav further contended that since the amount was subsequently deposited, the petition should not be rejected.

The 1st respondent also argued that there was substantial compliance with the rules, and the defect was curable. He relied on the judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan in Civil Writ (CW) No. 7637 of 2016, which held that if the deposit exceeds Rs. 25/-, the same can only be deposited in the treasury if an order is passed by the Court.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The singular issue before the Supreme Court was:

✓ Whether the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench was justified in dismissing the writ petition, thereby affirming the order of the Election Tribunal, which had rejected the application for dismissal of the election petition due to non-compliance with the Rajasthan Municipalities Election Petition Rules, 2009.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Charan Lal Sahu v. Nandkishore Bhatt and others [1973] 2 SCC 530 – Supreme Court of India: This case held that the deposit of security along with the election petition is mandatory, and non-compliance leaves no option but to reject the petition.
• K. Kamaraja Nadar v. Kunju Thevar and others [1959] SCR 583 – Supreme Court of India: This case interpreted the unamended Section 117 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, stating that the requirement of deposit in favor of the Secretary to the Election Commission was directory, not mandatory.
• Charan Lal Sahu v. Fakruddin Ali Ahmed and others [1975] 4 SCC 832 – Supreme Court of India: This case held that the deposit of security in cash or by enclosing a receipt of deposit in the Reserve Bank of India or a Government Treasury is mandatory.
• Aeltemesh Rein v. Chandulal Chandrakar and others [1981] 2 SCC 689 – Supreme Court of India: This case held that non-compliance with Section 117 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, regarding security deposit, requires the court to reject the election petition.
• Chandrika Prasad Tripathi v. Shiv Prasad Chanpuria and others [1959] SUPP (2) SCR 527 – Supreme Court of India: This case held that Section 117 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, should not be strictly construed, and substantial compliance is sufficient.
• M. Karunanidhi v. Dr. H.V. Hande and others [1983] 2 SCC 473 – Supreme Court of India: This case held that the deposit of money as security for costs is mandatory, but the manner of making the deposit is directory.
• M.Y. Ghorpade v. Shivaji Rao M. Poal and others [2002] 7 SCC 289 – Supreme Court of India: This case held that the deposit at the time of presentation of the election petition is mandatory, but not the mode of deposit.
• T.M. Jacob v. C. Poulose and others [1999] 4 SCC 274 – Supreme Court of India: This case held that not every minor variation in form but only a vital defect in substance can lead to non-compliance with Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
• G.M. Siddeshwar v. Prasanna Kumar [2013] 4 SCC 776 – Supreme Court of India: This case held that a defect in the verification of an affidavit is not fatal to the election petition and can be cured.
• Anil Vasudev Salgaonkar v. Naresh Kushali Shigaonkar [2009] 9 SCC 310 – Supreme Court of India: This case held that an election petition can be summarily dismissed if it does not furnish the cause of action.
• Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar v. Roop Singh Rathore and others [1964] 3 SCR 573 – Supreme Court of India: This case laid down tests for evaluating defects in election petitions.
• Om Prabha Jain v. Gian Chand and another [1959] SUPP (2) SCR 516 – Supreme Court of India: This case dealt with the interpretation of Section 117 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
• Budhi Nath Jha v. Manilal Jadav [1960] 22 ELR 86 – Supreme Court of India: This case also dealt with the interpretation of Section 117 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
• Ashok Kumar v. Learned A.D.J. No. 2 Chittorgarh and others – High Court of Rajasthan: This case dealt with Rule 85 of the election of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, holding that deposits over Rs. 25/- require a court order.
• Gulab Singh v. The Munsif and Judicial Magistrate 1st Class and others [1981] WLN (UC) 78 – High Court of Rajasthan: This case held that the deposit of security along with the election petition is mandatory.
• Bajrang Lal v. Kanhaiya Lal and others [2007] 2 Raj 1551 – High Court of Rajasthan: This case found compliance with the provision where an application was made and an order was passed allowing the deposit of the security amount before filing the election petition.
• Section 117, Representation of the People Act, 1951: This section deals with the deposit of security for costs while presenting an election petition.
• Article 329(b), Constitution of India: This article provides that no election shall be called in question except by an election petition.
• Sections 5-B and 5-C, Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952: These sections deal with nomination requirements for Presidential and Vice-Presidential elections.
• Rule 8, Madras High Court (Election Petitions) Rules, 1967: This rule prescribes the mode of deposit for election petitions in the Madras High Court.
• Rule 79(2) & (3), Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules, 1960: This rule deals with the security deposit for election petitions.
• Rule 81(2), Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Election Rules, 1994: This rule deals with the deposit of security for election petitions.
• Rule 85, Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Election Rules, 1994: This rule makes the procedure provided in the CPC applicable to election petitions.
• Rules 252, 253, 260, 261, 262, General Rules (Civil), 1986: These rules deal with the procedure for depositing money in civil courts in Rajasthan.
• Rules 54, 56, General Financial and Accounts Rules Volume I & Volume II: These rules deal with the payment of money into the treasury or bank.
• Rules 83, 86, Rajasthan Treasury Rules, 2012: These rules deal with the crediting of deposits and payment of revenue into the treasury.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ Charan Lal Sahu v. Nandkishore Bhatt [1973] 2 SCC 530: The Court distinguished this case, stating that the provision for deposit of security along with the election petition is mandatory.

✓ K. Kamaraja Nadar v. Kunju Thevar [1959] SCR 583: The Court distinguished this case, stating it interpreted an unamended provision and held that the requirement of deposit in favor of the Secretary to the Election Commission was directory, not mandatory.

✓ Charan Lal Sahu v. Fakruddin Ali Ahmed [1975] 4 SCC 832: The Court relied on this case, holding that the deposit of security in cash or by enclosing a receipt of deposit in the Reserve Bank of India or a Government Treasury is mandatory.

✓ Aeltemesh Rein v. Chandulal Chandrakar [1981] 2 SCC 689: The Court relied on this case to reiterate that non-compliance with deposit requirements necessitates rejection of the election petition.

✓ Chandrika Prasad Tripathi v. Shiv Prasad Chanpuria [1959] SUPP (2) SCR 527: The Court distinguished this case, stating that it dealt with substantial compliance, which is not applicable in the present case.

✓ M. Karunanidhi v. Dr. H.V. Hande [1983] 2 SCC 473: The Court distinguished this case, stating that while the deposit of money is mandatory, the manner of deposit is directory.

✓ M.Y. Ghorpade v. Shivaji Rao M. Poal [2002] 7 SCC 289: The Court relied on this case to reiterate that the deposit at the time of presentation is mandatory, but not the mode.

✓ T.M. Jacob v. C. Poulose [1999] 4 SCC 274: The Court distinguished this case, stating it dealt with defects in form, not with the mandatory requirement of deposit.

✓ G.M. Siddeshwar v. Prasanna Kumar [2013] 4 SCC 776: The Court distinguished this case, stating that it dealt with curable defects, not with the mandatory requirement of deposit.

✓ Ashok Kumar v. Learned A.D.J. No. 2 Chittorgarh: The Court overruled this decision, stating that the interpretation of the 1986 Rules by the learned Single Judge was not correct.

✓ Gulab Singh v. The Munsif and Judicial Magistrate 1st Class [1981] WLN (UC) 78: The Court relied on this case to emphasize that the deposit of security along with the election petition is mandatory.

✓ Bajrang Lal v. Kanhaiya Lal [2007] 2 Raj 1551: The Court distinguished this case on the basis that the deposit was made after obtaining permission from the court.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court emphasized the mandatory nature of Rule 3(5)(d) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Election Petition Rules, 2009, which requires the election petition to be accompanied by a treasury challan. The Court’s reasoning focused on the literal interpretation of the word “accompanied,” meaning that the challan and the deposit must co-exist at the time of presentation of the election petition. The Court also stressed that Rule 7(3) of the same rules leaves no room for discretion, mandating the dismissal of any petition that does not comply with the rules. The Court distinguished cases where substantial compliance was deemed sufficient, stating that the present case involves a mandatory requirement of deposit at the time of presentation, not a curable defect. The Court also overruled the decision of the High Court of Rajasthan in Ashok Kumar v. Learned A.D.J. No. 2 Chittorgarh, stating that the interpretation of the 1986 Rules was not correct.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

The Court considered alternative interpretations, such as the argument that the deposit was made within the period of limitation and that there was substantial compliance. However, the Court rejected these arguments, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the rule and the lack of discretion under Rule 7(3). The Court also rejected the interpretation of the 1986 Rules by the Rajasthan High Court in Ashok Kumar v. Learned A.D.J. No. 2 Chittorgarh, stating that there is no rule prescribing filing of treasury challan before the Election Tribunal in election petition after seeking permission at the time of presenting an election petition.

The final decision was that the deposit of the treasury challan, which implies the deposit of the requisite amount in the treasury, must be made at the time of presentation of the election petition. Failure to do so renders the election petition invalid, and the Election Tribunal was obligated to reject it.

The Court stated:

“The word used in the Rule is ‘accompanied’ and the term ‘accompany’ means to co-exist or go along. There cannot be a separation or segregation. The election petition has to be accompanied by the treasury challan and with the treasury challan, as has been understood by this Court, there has to be a deposit in the treasury.”

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court. The Court held that the election petition filed by the 1st respondent, Radhey Shyam Vishnav, was liable to be rejected as it was not accompanied by the treasury challan as required by Rule 3(5)(d) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Election Petition Rules, 2009. The Court emphasized that the deposit of the treasury challan, implying the deposit of the requisite amount in the treasury, must be made at the time of presentation of the election petition.

This judgment reinforces the importance of strict adherence to procedural rules in election petitions. The ruling clarifies that the requirement of submitting a treasury challan along with the election petition is mandatory, and any failure to comply with this requirement will lead to the dismissal of the petition. This decision serves as a guiding principle for all election petitions, ensuring that procedural compliances are meticulously followed.

The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the necessity of adhering to the letter of the law, particularly in matters concerning elections, where procedural compliance is paramount to maintaining the integrity of the electoral process.

Key Takeaways:

• Strict adherence to procedural rules is mandatory in election petitions.
• The treasury challan must accompany the election petition at the time of presentation.
• Non-compliance with Rule 3(5)(d) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Election Petition Rules, 2009, will lead to the dismissal of the petition.
• The deposit of the requisite amount in the treasury must be made at the time of presentation of the election petition.
• The Supreme Court’s judgment serves as a guiding principle for all election petitions, emphasizing the importance of procedural compliance.