When a statutory provision clearly delineates the requirements for compliance, it is not permissible to read additional requirements into it.: Supreme Court
Title: K. Babu Versus M. Swaraj and others
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5975 OF 2023
Date of Judgment- February 12, 2024
CORAM: Justice Aniruddha Bose and J. Sanjay Kumar
Facts of the Case-
The case originated from the election to the 15th Kerala Legislative Assembly held on 06.04.2021, in the 081-Tripunithura Legislative Assembly Constituency. The appellant emerged as the winner with a margin of 992 votes over the first respondent. Subsequently, the first respondent filed Election Petition No. 8 of 2021 before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam under Sections 80, 81, 83, 84, 100, 101, and 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (“the Act of 1951”). The petition sought a declaration of the appellant’s election as void, alleging various irregularities.
The appellant filed preliminary objections to the election petition, citing non-compliance with Section 81 of the Act of 1951 and Rule 212 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971. He argued that the petition was presented beyond the period of limitation, lacked sufficient copies as required, and the copy served to him wasn’t accurate. Additionally, he contended that the petition failed to include material facts and particulars of alleged corrupt practices, thus not disclosing a cause of action.
The High Court, in an order dated 29.03.2023, partially accepted the appellant’s plea but found sufficient cause of action to proceed with the trial of the election petition. The court concluded that the defects pointed out by the appellant did not amount to non-compliance with Section 81(3) of the Act of 1951 and thus rejected the appellant’s plea for summary dismissal under Section 86(1). However, the court held that the petition would be tried on identified issues, including allegations related to the use of a religious symbol by the appellant during the election campaign.
Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant filed the present appeal. In his grounds, he reiterated the issues of non-compliance with statutory provisions, including insufficient copies of the petition and inaccuracies in served documents. He also challenged the adequacy of material facts and particulars in the petition, particularly regarding the alleged use of religious symbols during the election campaign. The appellant sought the rejection of the election petition on these grounds.
Laws Involved:
- Sections 80, 81, 83, 84, 100, 101, and 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951
Issues framed by the court:
- whether the election petition filed against the appellant by the first respondent herein was liable to be rejected at the threshold?
Courts Judgment and Analysis:
In the case at hand, the central issue revolves around whether the election petition filed against the appellant by the first respondent was liable to be rejected at the threshold. The appellant argued primarily on the basis of non-compliance with the requirements of Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which mandates that every election petition must be accompanied by authenticated copies attested by the petitioner. However, the appellant contended that the copies of the petition served on the respondents were not true copies and lacked attestation as required by Rule 212 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1971.
The appellant’s contention primarily hinged on the interpretation of Rule 212 of the 1971 Rules, which requires three authenticated copies for the use of the court, in addition to the copies required under Section 81(3) of the Act. However, the court found that the appellant did not provide substantial evidence to support the claim that the copies served on them lacked attestation by the first respondent.
Furthermore, the court noted that while the appellant argued that Rule 212 should be read in conjunction with Section 81(3) of the Act, they found no legal basis for such an interpretation. The court emphasized that when a statutory provision clearly delineates the requirements for compliance, it is not permissible to read additional requirements into it. Rule 212, being a provision of the 1971 Rules, imposes additional requirements set by the High Court and cannot be automatically applied to Section 81(3) of the Act.
Thus, the court concluded that the objections raised by the appellant lacked merit, and the election petition filed by the first respondent was not liable to be rejected at the threshold. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, vacated the interim order, dismissed any pending miscellaneous applications, and ordered each party to bear their own costs.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Aditi
