Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 37 (0.41 seconds)Section 86 in The Representation of the People Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Section 81 in The Representation of the People Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Section 82 in The Representation of the People Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Section 117 in The Representation of the People Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
H.D. Revanna vs G. Puttaswamy And Ors on 21 January, 1999
“…….If the view of the High Court in the order impugned before us
is to be upheld, an election petitioner having filed an affidavit
fully satisfying the requirement of Section 83(1) proviso and Rule
94-A in all respects but having made an omission in the copy of the
affidavit delivered to the respondent would be placed in a position
worse than an election petitioner whose original affidavit filed
with the election petition itself did not satisfy the requirement
of Section 83(1) proviso read with Rule 94-A. This could not have
been the intendment of law. Such an interpretation would, to say
the least, make a mockery of justice. That non-compliance with
Section 83 cannot be a ground for dismissal of the election
petition under Section 86 and the defect, if any, is curable, has
been the view taken by a three-Judge Bench in Manohar Joshi v.
Nitin Bhaurao Patil and also in H.D. Revanna v. G. Puttaswamy Gowda
wherein all the decisions available till then have been considered.
G. Mallikarjunappa And Another vs Shamanur Shivashankarappa & Others on 4 April, 2001
18. To the same effect is the decision of a three-Judge bench of this
Court in G. Mallikarjunappa and Anr. v. Shamanur Shiv Ashankappa and Ors.
(2001) 4 SCC 428. The High Court had in that case also dismissed the
election petitions taking the view that there had been non-compliance with
Rule 94-A of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 inasmuch as the affidavit
filed in support of the allegations of corrupt practices with the election
petitions did not comply with the requirements of the format as prescribed
in Form 25. Allowing the appeal this Court observed:
Manohar Joshi vs Nitin Bhaurao Patil & Anr on 11 December, 1995
“…….If the view of the High Court in the order impugned before us
is to be upheld, an election petitioner having filed an affidavit
fully satisfying the requirement of Section 83(1) proviso and Rule
94-A in all respects but having made an omission in the copy of the
affidavit delivered to the respondent would be placed in a position
worse than an election petitioner whose original affidavit filed
with the election petition itself did not satisfy the requirement
of Section 83(1) proviso read with Rule 94-A. This could not have
been the intendment of law. Such an interpretation would, to say
the least, make a mockery of justice. That non-compliance with
Section 83 cannot be a ground for dismissal of the election
petition under Section 86 and the defect, if any, is curable, has
been the view taken by a three-Judge Bench in Manohar Joshi v.
Nitin Bhaurao Patil and also in H.D. Revanna v. G. Puttaswamy Gowda
wherein all the decisions available till then have been considered.
Sardar Harcharan Singh Brar vs Sukh Darshan Singh & Ors on 27 October, 2004
16. Even otherwise the question whether non-compliance of the proviso to
Section 83 (1) of the Act is fatal to the election petition is no longer
res-integra in the light of a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in
Sardar Harcharan Singh Brar v. Sukh Darshan Singh & Ors. (2004) 11 SCC 196.
In that case a plea based on a defective affidavit was raised before the
High Court resulting in the dismissal of the election petition. In appeal
against the said order, this Court held that non-compliance with the
proviso to Section 83 of the Act did not attract an order of dismissal of
an election petition in terms of Section 86 thereof. Section 86 of the Act
does not provide for dismissal of an election petition on the ground that
the same does not comply with the provisions of Section 83 of the Act. It
sanctions dismissal of an election petition for non-compliance of Sections
81, 82 and 117 of the Act only. Such being the position, the defect if any
in the verification of the affidavit filed in support of the petition was
not fatal, no matter the proviso to Section 83(1) was couched in a
mandatory form. This Court observed: