Supreme Court Upholds Election Petition: K. Babu vs. M. Swaraj (2024)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 12 February 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 103

Judges: Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Sanjay Kumar

Can an election petition be dismissed at the outset for not adhering to the High Court’s rules regarding the number of copies to be filed, in addition to the statutory requirements? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in an appeal concerning an election petition filed before the High Court of Kerala. The core issue was whether non-compliance with a High Court rule regarding the number of copies of an election petition warrants its dismissal under Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The Supreme Court, comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar, delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The appellant, K. Babu, and the first respondent, M. Swaraj, along with six other candidates, contested the election to the 15th Kerala Legislative Assembly on 06 April 2021, from the 081-Tripunithura Legislative Assembly Constituency. The appellant was declared the winner on 02 May 2021, having secured 992 more votes than the first respondent. Subsequently, the first respondent filed Election Petition No. 8 of 2021 before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, seeking to declare the appellant’s election void and to declare himself duly elected.

The appellant raised preliminary objections, contending that the election petition should be dismissed under Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (the Act of 1951) for non-compliance with Section 81 of the said Act. He argued that the complete election petition, after curing defects, was placed before the Court beyond the limitation period. Additionally, he claimed that the required number of copies, as per Rule 212 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971 (the Rules of 1971), were not filed, and that the copy provided to him was not a true copy.

The appellant also argued that the petition lacked material facts and particulars of corrupt practices, as required under Section 83 of the Act of 1951. He claimed that the pleadings did not disclose a cause of action and sought dismissal under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Kerala, after considering the preliminary objections, found that the defects pointed out by the appellant did not relate to Section 81(3) of the Act of 1951, but to Rule 212 of the Rules of 1971. The High Court held that these lapses did not amount to non-compliance with Section 81(3) and that the election petition was not liable to be rejected under Section 86(1) of the Act of 1951.

The High Court also considered precedents and concluded that certain statements made by the appellant and his agents did not constitute a corrupt practice under Sections 123(2)(a)(ii) and 123(3) of the Act of 1951. However, regarding the allegation that the appellant had used a religious symbol (Lord Ayyappa) to further his election prospects, the High Court found that the slips distributed by the appellant and his agents prima facie constituted a corrupt practice under Section 123(3) of the Act of 1951. The High Court decided to proceed with the election petition on this specific issue.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of Section 81(3) and Section 86(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, along with Rule 212 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971.

Section 86(1) of the Act of 1951 states:

‘86. Trial of election petitions.-
(1) The High Court shall dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of section 81 or section 82 or section 117.’

Section 81(3) of the Act of 1951 states:

‘81. Presentation of petitions.-
(1)…..
(2)…..
(3) Every election petition shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned in the petition and every such copy shall be attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition…..’

Section 83 of the Act of 1951 states:

‘83. Contents of Petition.-
(1) An election petition—
(a) shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies;
(b) shall set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice that the petitioner alleges including as full a statement as possible of the names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practice and the date and place of the commission of each such practice; and
(c)…….’

Rule 212 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971 states:

‘212. Copies of petitions etc., to be furnished.-
(1) Every petition shall be accompanied by 3 authenticated copies of the application for the use of the court and twice the number of additional copies as there are respondents to be produced along with the application for service along with summons as per rules 210 and 211…….’

Arguments

The appellant’s primary argument was that the election petition was not in compliance with Section 81 of the Act of 1951, specifically Section 81(3), as sufficient authenticated copies were not filed at the time of presentation. The appellant contended that the copies of the documents served on the respondents were not true copies and were not attested as true copies. He argued that these defects were not cured within the prescribed limitation period for filing an election petition and therefore, the petition should be rejected.

The appellant also argued that the election petition lacked material facts and particulars, specifically regarding the printing and publishing of slips with religious symbols. The appellant further contended that the source of information regarding the distribution of such slips was not disclosed.

The respondent argued that the election petition was in compliance with Section 81(3) of the Act of 1951, as the required number of copies were filed and attested. The respondent contended that the additional requirements under Rule 212 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971, were separate from the statutory requirements under Section 81(3) of the Act of 1951. The respondent argued that the High Court was correct in holding that the election petition should be tried on the issue of use of religious symbol.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the election petition filed against the appellant by the first respondent was liable to be rejected at the threshold due to non-compliance with Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court viewed the authorities as follows:

• T. Phungzathang vs. Hangkhanlian and others [(2001) 8 SCC 358]*, Umesh Challiyill vs. K.P. Rajendran [(2008) 11 SCC 740]*, Ponnala Lakshmaiah vs. Kommuri Pratap Reddy and others [(2012) 7 SCC 788]*, G.M. Siddeshwar vs. Prasanna Kumar [(2013) 4 SCC 776]*, and A. Manju vs. Prajwal Revanna alias Prajwal R and others [(2022) 3 SCC 269]* were cited to support the position that defects in an election petition that constitute non-compliance with Section 83 of the Act of 1951 are curable.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the strict interpretation of the statutory requirements under Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and the distinction between those requirements and the procedural rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971. The Court emphasized that when a statutory provision clearly states what is required, it is not permissible to add additional requirements from the High Court rules. The Court also noted that non-compliance with Section 83 of the Act of 1951 is not fatal for dismissal under Section 86(1), as such defects are curable.

The Court’s reasoning can be summarized as follows:

The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the requirements of Rule 212 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971, should be read into Section 81(3) of the Act of 1951. The Court emphasized that the statutory provision is clear and does not permit the addition of extra requirements from High Court rules.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“When the statutory provision unequivocally stipulates as to what is required to be done to comply with the mandate thereof, it is not permissible in law to read something more into that provision.”

The Court also noted:

“Rule 212 of the Rules of 1971 introduces additional requirements prescribed by the High Court and the same cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be read into and be made part and parcel of Section 81(3) of the Act of 1951.”

The Court further stated:

“In any event, it is well settled that non-compliance with the requirements of Section 83 of the Act of 1951 is not fatal, as Section 86(1) thereof only speaks of non-compliance with Sections 81, 82 or 117 being the basis for dismissal of an election petition at the outset.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court has clarified that the requirements of Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, are distinct from the procedural rules of the High Court.
• Non-compliance with High Court rules regarding the number of copies of an election petition does not warrant its dismissal under Section 86(1) of the Act of 1951.
• Defects in an election petition that constitute non-compliance with Section 83 of the Act of 1951 are curable and do not lead to the dismissal of the petition at the outset.
• The judgment reinforces the principle that statutory provisions must be interpreted strictly and that additional requirements cannot be read into them.

Directions

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and vacated the interim order dated 18.01.2024. The Court also dismissed the pending miscellaneous applications. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the requirements of Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, are distinct from the procedural rules of the High Court and non-compliance with High Court rules regarding the number of copies of an election petition does not warrant its dismissal under Section 86(1) of the Act of 1951. This judgment clarifies the scope of Section 81(3) and reinforces the principle that statutory provisions must be interpreted strictly. There is no change in the previous positions of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the election petition filed by the first respondent was not liable to be rejected at the threshold. The Court clarified that the requirements of Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, are distinct from the procedural rules of the High Court and that non-compliance with High Court rules does not warrant dismissal of the election petition under Section 86(1) of the Act of 1951. The Court also reaffirmed that defects under Section 83 are curable.

Category

• Election Law
  • Representation of the People Act, 1951
  • Section 81, Representation of the People Act, 1951
  • Section 83, Representation of the People Act, 1951
  • Section 86, Representation of the People Act, 1951
  • Section 123, Representation of the People Act, 1951

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the K. Babu vs. M. Swaraj case?

A: The main issue was whether an election petition could be dismissed for not complying with the High Court’s rules regarding the number of copies to be filed, in addition to the statutory requirements under Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide about the High Court rules?

A: The Supreme Court decided that the High Court’s rules regarding the number of copies of an election petition are separate from the statutory requirements under Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Non-compliance with the High Court rules does not warrant dismissal of the election petition under Section 86(1) of the Act.

Q: What are the implications of this judgment for future election petitions?

A: This judgment clarifies that election petitions cannot be dismissed for non-compliance with High Court procedural rules regarding the number of copies, as long as the statutory requirements under Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 are met. It also confirms that defects under Section 83 are curable.

Q: What does the judgment say about the use of religious symbols in elections?

A: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision that there was a triable issue regarding the use of religious symbols by the appellant, which could be a corrupt practice under Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.