The Supreme Court has set aside the Karnataka High Court order, dismissing a petition against the election of Janata Dal-Secular’s Prajwal Revanna from the Hassan Lok Sabha constituency.
A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice M.M. Sundresh disposed off an appeal filed by petitioner G. Devarajegowda being aggrieved by the order dated January 31, 2020 passed by the High Court of Karnataka wherein the High Court dismissed the election petition wondering Prajwal’s election on diverse grounds, consisting of allegation of indulging in corrupt practices and non-disclosure of data in his nomination paper on technical grounds.
The election petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the election of candidate Pranjwal Revannna alias Prajwal R from Hassan parliamentary constituency held in 2019, alleging that the result of election has been materially affected by improper acceptance of Pranjwal Revannna’s nomination under section 100 (1) (b) (d) (i) (iii) (iv) of Representation Of People Act, 1951.
He also claimed that Pranjwal had committed corrupt practices in the election and he was not qualified to be chosen to fill the seat.
Senior Counsel for Pranjwal contended that the election was declared on May 23, 2019. In view of the limitation prescribed in Section 81 of the RP Act, the election petition was required to be presented by any candidate at such election or any elector within 45 days therefrom, but not earlier than the date of election of the returned candidate.
The period of limitation prescribed under section 81 was to expire on July 7, 2019. Even though the election petition was filed on July 6, 2019, it was full of defects. The majority of the defects were not curable and amounted to non-compliance of the mandatory requirements provided under sections 81 and 83 of the RP Act. Filing of copies is mandatory in character.
Also Read: Rajasthan High Court dismisses PIL seeking direction to state government for covering of borewells
As per section 81 of the RP Act, it is essential that the petition must be accompanied by a requisite number of copies. If this is not done and the period of 45 days has expired, the defect cannot be cured subsequently, because the provisions of the Act are mandatory in nature. If the copies are supplied subsequently, the same will not cure the non-compliance of section 81 of the RP Act. After the expiry of the period of limitation, even the Court has no power to condone the delay and extend time to comply with the provisions.
Respondents contended that every object of expeditious trial would be defeated if the presentation of the election petition should be treated casually and lightly permitting all kinds of devices to delay the ultimate trial & placed reliance on judgment passed in SATYA NARAIN vs. DHUJA RAM & Others in (1974) 4 SCC 237,
“11. Part VI of the Act deals with disputes regarding election. Chapter II therein provides for presentation of election petitions while Chapter III for trial of election petitions. The right to challenge an election is conferred under the Act which is made in conformity with the provisions of Article 329(b) of the Constitution. It is well settled that it is a special right conferred under a self-contained special law and the Court will have to seek answer to the questions raised within the four corners of the Act and the powers of the Court are circumscribed by its provisions. It is not a common law right and an election petition cannot be equated with a plaintiff in a civil suit.”
Respondents prayed for dismissal of the Election Petition for non-compliance of provision of section 81(3) of the RP Act and proviso to sub-section (1) of section 83 of the RP Act read with Rule 94A of the Conduct of Election Rules & contended that it was barred by time.
Petitioner contended that objections raised by respondents are not specific and are lacking in material particulars.
Karnataka High Court observed that the petitioner had not followed Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 because the petitioner had no longer attested annexures appended to the petition.
Also Read: Hijab controversy: Karnataka High Court adjourns hearing to Tuesday
The High court said non-attested annexure cannot be relied upon by the court docket whilst framing troubles and consequently cannot proceed further as Section 86 mandates that the court docket disregard a petition that does not follow the provisions of the Section eighty one of the Act. Though the petitioner had rectified the omissions after submitting the petition, the court docket stated that the necessary procedures were required to be rectified within forty five days from the date of election of the lower back candidate. The petition cannot be taken into consideration to be filed as in line with Section 81(three) of the Act because the defects were now not rectified within forty five days, the cut-off date fixed in Section eighty one of the Act for filing petition difficult election of a again candidate, and in this example, the defects had been rectified after forty five days, the court docket found. Section 81(3) of the Act states that each election petition shall be followed with the aid of as many copies thereof as there are respondents stated inside the petition, and each such reproduction shall be attested by means of the petitioner beneath his own signature to be a true copy of the petition.
The High Court dismissed the election Petition wondering Prajwal’s election on diverse grounds, consisting of allegations of indulging in corrupt practices and non-disclosure of data in his nomination paper on technical grounds.