# F.A. SAPA ETC. ETC v. SINGORA AND ORS. ETC

- **Citation:** [1991] 2 S.C.R. 752
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1991-05-10
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. 179-189 of 1991
- **Bench:** A.M. Ahmadi, V. Ramaswami, M. Fathima Beevi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/f-a-sapa-etc-etc-v-singora-and-ors-etc-11149
- **Pages:** 38

## Headnote

The Representation of the People Act, 1951-Sections 80, BOA,
81, 82, 83, 86 read with Rules 94, 95-A and Form 25 of the Representation of the People's Rules, 1951-Presentation of"Eledion PetitionContents of-Trial Court's duty to '·ee whether complied with the statutory requirements-Proper attestation and verification-Necessity of.
The Representation of the People Act, 1951-Section 83-Safeguards against allegation of corrupt practices-Legislative intention
explained.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908--0rder VI, Rule, 15 read with
Section 83, the Representation of the People's Act, 1951-Verification
of election petition-Application of C'Jde.
The Representation of the People Act, 1951-Chapter 11E
Title-"Presentation of Election Petitions to Election Commission"-
Held requires amendment.
The respondents, who lost the State Assembly elections as candidates of the Mezo National Front(MNF) from different constituencies of
Mizoram, challenged the election of the Congress (I) candidates on the
F
ground of corrupt practices in the High Court.
The appellants-the returned candidates raised certain preliminary
objections regarding the maintainability of each petition. On the basis
thereof two preliminary issues were raised for consideration. The appellants moved for striking off the pleadings. Thereupon, the original petiG
tioners-the respondents applied for amendment of their election petitions which was strongly opposed hy the appellants. The preliminary
objections, the applications for striking off the pleadings and the
amendment applications were heard together.
The two preliminary issues raised were (i) whether the election
H
petitions were in confirmity wi!h the requirements of Sections 81 and 83
752
.-t·
,.. _
F.A. SAPA v. SINGORA
753
of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951 and the Rules framed
thereunder by the High Court and (ii) whether rule 1 and the other
related rules and notes thereto enabling the filing of the Election Petition
before the Stamp Reporter assigned to the election court by the Chief
Justice were ultra vires Article 329 of the Constitution and Section 169
read with Sections 80, 80A and 81 of the R.P. Act.
The appellants contended that the election petitions being photo
copies, could not be treated as election petitions as contemplated by
law; that the copies of petitions served on them were not attested to be
true copies of the original petitions as required by Section 81(3); that
A
B
c
the election petitions were not signed and verified in the manner laid
down by the Code of Civil Procedure inasmuch as the source of information bad not been disclosed In the verification or in the affidavit in
Form 25 as required by rule 94A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961
(the Rules); that no schedule of material particulars of corrupt practice
had been annexed to the affidavit purporting to be under Form 25, and
that the presentation of the election petitions before the Stamp Reporter
was inconsistent with Sections 80, 80A and 81 of the R.P. Act and D
Article 329 of the Constitution.
The averments in each election petition were identical.
The High Court rejected the preliminary objections and partly
allowed the applications for striking off the averments in the election
E
petitions and partly permitted certain amendments to the election petitions, against which order the present appeals are filed in this Court
under Article 136 of the Constitution.
The returned candidate-the appellant contended that paragraph 3
of the election petition was the most crucial paragraph inasmuch as__i_t F
disclosed the names of towns and villages as well as the period during
which the alleged corrupt practices were committed had been deliberately omitted from the verification clause and the affidavit; that
failure to mention paragraph 3 of the election petition in both the verification clause of the petition ·and the affidavit was fatal and cannot be
cured after the expiry of the limitation period of 45 days; that the G
affidavit was no

## Text

_Characters 0–39,759 of 101,869. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39759 for what follows._

A
B
c
D
F.A. SAPA ETC. ETC.
v.
SINGORA AND ORS. ETC.
MAY 10, 1991
[A.M. AHMADI, V. RAMASWAMI AND M. FATHIMA
BEEVI JJ.]
The Representation of the People Act, 1951-Sections 80, BOA,
81, 82, 83, 86 read with Rules 94, 95-A and Form 25 of the Representation of the People's Rules, 1951-Presentation of"Eledion PetitionContents of-Trial Court's duty to '·ee whether complied with the statutory requirements-Proper attestation and verification-Necessity of.
The Representation of the People Act, 1951-Section 83-Safeguards against allegation of corrupt practices-Legislative intention
explained.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908--0rder VI, Rule, 15 read with
Section 83, the Representation of the People's Act, 1951-Verification
of election petition-Application of C'Jde.
The Representation of the People Act, 1951-Chapter 11E
Title-"Presentation of Election Petitions to Election Commission"-
Held requires amendment.
The respondents, who lost the State Assembly elections as candidates of the Mezo National Front(MNF) from different constituencies of
Mizoram, challenged the election of the Congress (I) candidates on the
F
ground of corrupt practices in the High Court.
The appellants-the returned candidates raised certain preliminary
objections regarding the maintainability of each petition. On the basis
thereof two preliminary issues were raised for consideration. The appellants moved for striking off the pleadings. Thereupon, the original petiG
tioners-the respondents applied for amendment of their election petitions which was strongly opposed hy the appellants. The preliminary
objections, the applications for striking off the pleadings and the
amendment applications were heard together.
The two preliminary issues raised were (i) whether the election
H
petitions were in confirmity wi!h the requirements of Sections 81 and 83
752
.-t·
,.. _
F.A. SAPA v. SINGORA
753
of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951 and the Rules framed
thereunder by the High Court and (ii) whether rule 1 and the other
related rules and notes thereto enabling the filing of the Election Petition
before the Stamp Reporter assigned to the election court by the Chief
Justice were ultra vires Article 329 of the Constitution and Section 169
read with Sections 80, 80A and 81 of the R.P. Act.
The appellants contended that the election petitions being photo
copies, could not be treated as election petitions as contemplated by
law; that the copies of petitions served on them were not attested to be
true copies of the original petitions as required by Section 81(3); that
A
B
c
the election petitions were not signed and verified in the manner laid
down by the Code of Civil Procedure inasmuch as the source of information bad not been disclosed In the verification or in the affidavit in
Form 25 as required by rule 94A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961
(the Rules); that no schedule of material particulars of corrupt practice
had been annexed to the affidavit purporting to be under Form 25, and
that the presentation of the election petitions before the Stamp Reporter
was inconsistent with Sections 80, 80A and 81 of the R.P. Act and D
Article 329 of the Constitution.
The averments in each election petition were identical.
The High Court rejected the preliminary objections and partly
allowed the applications for striking off the averments in the election
E
petitions and partly permitted certain amendments to the election petitions, against which order the present appeals are filed in this Court
under Article 136 of the Constitution.
The returned candidate-the appellant contended that paragraph 3
of the election petition was the most crucial paragraph inasmuch as__i_t F
disclosed the names of towns and villages as well as the period during
which the alleged corrupt practices were committed had been deliberately omitted from the verification clause and the affidavit; that
failure to mention paragraph 3 of the election petition in both the verification clause of the petition ·and the affidavit was fatal and cannot be
cured after the expiry of the limitation period of 45 days; that the G
affidavit was not in Form No. 25 prescribed under Rule 94A of the
Rules and since Section 83 of the R.P. Act is mandatory and failure to
adhere to Form No. 25 was fatal, as the doctrine of substantial compliance bad no place in election law but even if that doctrine could be
invoked, the respondent failed to make substantial compliance; that the
election petitions being photocopies could not be entertained as valid
H
754
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
I 1991] 2 S.C.R.
A election petitions; that copies of the election jietitions served on the
returned candidates were not attested as true copies of the priginal as
required by Section 81(3); that the election petitions and the schedule
_,,, ..
and annexures were not signed and verified as required by the Code;
that an election dispute founded on the allegation of corrupt practice
being quasi-criminal in nature calls for strict adherence to the require- ·
B
ments of election law as was evident from Section 86(1) of R.P. Act
which provided for dismissal of an election petition which failed to
comply with the requirements of Sections 81, 82 or 117 of the statute;
and that if the Code did not apply to Mizoram, it applied to an election
petition because section 83(1)(c) obligates that an election petition 'shall
>-
be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the
c
Code for the verification of pleadings'.
This Court partly allowing the appeals,
HELD: 1. Our election law being statutory in character must be
strictly complied with since an election petition is not guided by ever
D changing common law principles of justice and notions of equity. Being
statutory in character it is essential that it must conform to the require-
~
ments of our election law. But at the same time the purity of election
process must be maintained at all costs and those who violate the statutory norms must suffer for such violation. If the returned candidate is
shown to have secured his success at the election by corrupt means he
E
must suffer for his misdeeds. [ 772 B-D]
2. A charge of corrupt practice has a two dimensional effect; its
impact on the returned candidate has to be viewed from the point of
view of the candidate's future political and public life and from the
point of view of the electorate to ensure the purity of the election pro-
..
F
cess. There can, therefore, be no doubt that such an allegation involving
corrupt practice must be viewed very seriously and the High Court
shoul:' ensure compliance with the requirements of Section 83 before
the~wesgototrial. [7830-EJ
3. What is essential is that the petitioner must take the responsi-
,.._,
G
bility of the copy being a true copy of the original petition and sign in
token thereof. No particular form of attestation is prescribed; all that
the sub-section enjoins is that the petitioner must attest the copy under
his own signature to be a true copy of the petition. By certifying the
same as true copy and by putting his signature at the foot thereof, the
petitioner of each election petition had clearly complied with the letter
H and spirit of section 81(3) of the R.P. Act. [786A-B]
•
_)"{ __ .,.._
F.A. SAPA v. SINGORA
755:
4. Section 86(1) mandates that the High Court 'shall' dismiss an
election petition which does not comply with the provisions of Section 81
or Section 82 or Section 117 of the R.P. Act. The language of this
sub-section is quite imperative and commands the High Court, in no
uncertain terms, to dismiss an election petition which does not comply
with the requirements of section 8Ior section 82. [773B-D]
S. Election of a returned candidate can be rendered void on proof
of the alleged corrupt practice. In addition thereto be wonld incur a
subsequent disqualification also. This harshness is·essential if we want
onr democratic process to be clean, free and fair. Eradication of corrupt practice from onr democratic process is essential if we want it to
thrive and remain healthy. Our democratic process will collapse if
A
B
r
unhealthy corrupt practices like appeals to voters on basis of caste,
creed, commnnity religion, race, language, etc., are allowed to go
nncbecked and unpunished. Use of corrnpt practices in elections to
secnre short term gains at the cost of purity of onr democratic process
must be frowned at by every right thinking citizen~ [773D-F]
6. It is for that reason that the law bas provided for double
jeopardy to deter candidates, their agents and others from indnlging in
sncb nefarions practices. Bnt while there is snfficient jnstification for
D
the law to be harsh with those who indulge in such practkes, there is also the
need to ensure that such allegations are made with a sence of responsibility and concern and not merely to vex the returned candidate. It is with E
this in view that the law envisages that the particnlars of sncb allegations shall be set out fully disclosing the name of the party responsible
for the same and the date and place of its commission. A simple verification was considered insufficient and, therefore, the need for an affidavit
in the prescribed form. These procednral precantions are intended to
ensure that the person making the allegation of corrupt practice realises F
the serionsness thereof as such a charge would be akin to a criminal
charge since it visits the party indulging in such practice with a two-fold
penalty. [773E-H]
7. If full particulars of an alleged corrupt practice are not supplied, the proper course would be to give an opportunity to the G
petitioner to cnre the defect and if be fails to avail of that opportnnity
that part oftbe charge may be struck down. [77SF-G]
8. Once the amendment sought falls within the purview of :iection
86(5), the High Court sbonld be liberal in allowing the same unless, in
the facts and circnmstances of the case, the Conrt finds it unjust and H
A
756
SUPREME COLRT REPORTS
I 1991] 2 S.C.R.
prejudicial to the opposite party to allow the same. Such prejudice
must, however, he distinguished from mere incouvenience. [77SG-H]
9. The power conferred by section 86( 5) cannot he exercised to
-"'
allow any amendment which will have the effect of introducing a corrupt practice not previously alleged in the petition. If it is found that the
B
proposed amendments are not in the nature of supplying particulars
but raise new grounds, the same must he rejected but if the amendments are sought for removing vagueness by confining the allegations to
the returned candidate only such an amendment would fall within the
c
D
E
F
parameters of section 86(5) of the R.P. Act. [7898-D]
J_
10. Clause(c) of sub-section (I) of section 83 provides that an
election petition shall he signed by the petitioner and verified in the
manner laid down by the Code for the verification of the pleadings.
Under section 83(2) any schedule or annexure to the pleading must he
similarly verified. Order 6 Rule 15 is the relevant provision in the Code.
Sub-rule (2) of Rule IS says that the person verifying shall specify with
reference to the numbered paragraphs of the pleading, what he verifies
on his own knowledge and what he verifies upon information received
and believed to he true. The verification must he signed by the person
making it and must state the date on and the place at which it was
signed. The defect in the verification can be (i) of a formal nature
and not very substantial (ii) one which substantially complies with
the requirements and (iii) that which is material but capable of being
cured. [776A-C]
11. The object of requiring verification of an election petition is
clearly to fiJ the responsibility for the averments and allegations in the
petition on the person signing the verification and at the same time discouraging wild and irresporu.ible allegations unsupported by facts. [776C-D]
12. In cases where corrupt practice is alleged in the petition, the
petition shall also he supported by an affidavit in the prescribed form,
i.e., Form No. 25 prescribed by Rule 94Aofthe Rules. [7760-E]
.G
13. While defective verification or a defective affidavit may not
be fatal, the High Court should ensure its compliance before the parties
go to trial so that the party required to meet the charge is not taken by
surprise at the actual trial. [783E-F]
14. The charge of corrupt practice has to he proved beyond
H
reasonable doubt and not merely by preponderance of probabilities.
P.A. SAPA v. SJNGORA
757
Miegation of corrupt practice being quasi-criminal in nature, the A
failure to supply full particulars at the earliest point of time and to
disclose the source of information promptly may have an adverse bear-
)".
ing on the probative value to be attached to the evidence tendered in
.....
proof thereof at the trial. Therefore, even though ordinarily a defective
verification can be cured and the failure to disclose the grounds or
sources of information may not be fatal, failure to place them on record' B
with promptitude may lead the court in a given case to doubt the veracity of the evidence ultimately tendered. H, however, the affidavit of the
schedule or annexure forms an integral •part of the election petition
~
itself, strict compliance would be insisted upon. [783G-784B)
15. The requirements of section 81(3) are mandatory and failure c
to comply with them would render the petition liable to summary dismissal under section 86(1)ofthe R.P. Act. [784G)
16. H a document does not form an integral part of the election
petition but is merely referred to in the petition or filed in the proceedings as evidence of any fact, failure to supply a copy thereof will not D
prove fatal. Therefore the maintainability of an election petition will
depend on whether the schedule or annexure to the petition constitutes
an integral part of the election petition or not. Hit constitutes an integral part it must satisfy the requirements of section 81(3) and failure in
that behalf would be fatal. But if it does not constitute an integral part
of the election petition, a copy thereof need not be served along with the E
petition to the opposite party. (787 A-CJ
Jc
17. The High Court is directed to issue directions to the election
petitioner of each petition to remove the defects within sncb time as it
may allow and if they or any of them fail to do so, pass appropriate
consequential orders in accordance with law. [789A-B)
F
Gurumayam S. Sarma v. K. Ongbi Anisija Devi, Civil Appeal No.
659of1957 dated 9.2.1961; State of Nagaland v. Rattan Singh, [1966] 3
SCR 830; V.L. Roh/us v. Deputy Commissioner, Aizawal, [1970) 2
~
SCC 908; Raj Narain v. Indira Gandhi, AIR 1972 SC 1302 at 1307:
(1972) 3 SCR 841; Manphu/ Singh v. Surinder Singh, [1973) 2 SCC 599 G
at 608; K.M. Mani v. P.J. Antony, [1979) 1 SCR 701; Samant N.
Bal-Krishna v. George Fernandez, [1969) 3 SCR 603; D.P. Mishra v.
Kamal Narayan Sharma, [ 1971) 1 SCR 8; Ba/wan Singh v. Lakshmi
Narain, (1969) 22 ELR 273; Murarka Radhey Shyam v. Roop Singh
Rathore, [1964) 3 SCR 573; State of BJmbay v. Puru.ihottam Jog Naik,
[ 1952) SCR 674; The Barjum Chemicals Ltd. v. The Company Law H
758
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1991] 2 S.C.R.
A
Board, [1966] Supp. SCR 311; K.K. Nambiarv. Union of India, [1970]
3 SCR 121 at 125; Jadav Gi/ua v. Suraj Narain Iha, AIR 1974 Patna
207; M/s Sunder Industries Ltd. v. G.E. Works, AIR 1982 Delhi 220;
K.K. Somanathan v. K.K. Ramachandran, Am 1988; Kera/a 259;
Kama/am v. Dr. Syed Mohammad, [1978] 3 SCR 446; M/s. SukhwinB
c
der Pai v. State of Punjab, [1982] 1 SCC 31; Z.B. Bukhari v. Brij
Mohan, [1975] Suppl. SCR 281; Prabhu Narayan v. A.K. Srivastava,
[1975] 3 SCR 552; Satya Narain v. Dhuja Ram, [1974] 4 SCC 237; M.
Karunanidhi v. Dr. H. V. Hande, [1983] 2 SCC 473; Mith/esh Kumar
Pandey v. Bajdyanath Y7idav, [1984] 2 SCR 278; Rajender Singh v.
Usha Rani, [1984] 3 SCC 339; U.S. Sasidharan v. K. Karunakaran,
[1989] 4 SCC 482 and Ch. Subba Rao v. Member, E.T. Hyderabad,
[ 1969] 6 SCR 213 Referred to.
18. When by the same statute the words 'Election Commissioner'
were substituted by the expression 'High Court' with effect from
December 14,1966. Even though by the said Amendment Act jurisdic·
tion was conferred on the High Court in place of the Election CommisD
sion, surprisingly the title of Chapter II continues to read 'Presentation
of election petitions to Election Commission'. Parliament will do well
to correct this slip by substituting the words 'High Court' for the expression 'Election Commission' to bring it in conformity with the
changes introduced by Act 47 of 1966. [768E-F]
E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.
179-189 of 1991 etc. etc ..
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.9.1990 of the Gauhati
~
High Court in Election Petition No. 7 of 1989.
f
A.M. Mazumdar, Dr. L.M. Singhvi, S.K. Nandy. S. Parekh and
Ms. Lira Goswami for the Appellants.
Dr. B.L. Wadehra and M.K.D. Namboodiri for the Res1xmdents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
AHMADI, J. Special leave granted in all SLPs.
Mizoram acquired Statehood on February 20, 1987. At the
general election held on January 21, 1989, the respondents of this
batch of appeals contested the State Assembly elections as candidates
H
of the Mizo National Front (MNF) from different constituencies. The
-~ .. _
·~.
F.A. SAPA v. SINGORA [AHMADI, J.]
759
results of the election were declared on January 23, 1989. They lost to
candidates fielded by the Indian National Congress (I). The unsuccessful MNF candidates challenged the election of the Congress (I) candidates mainly on the ground that they had indulged in and were guilty
of corrupt practices. As many as fifteen such election petitions came to
be filed in the Gauhati High Court on one single day, March 9, 1989.
Although fifteen petitions were filed, one Congress (I) candidate had
succeeded from two constituencies and one candidate belonged to the
Mizo National Front (Democratic) Party. On service of notice of the
filing of the election petitions, the returned candidates entered appearance and raised certain preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of each petition. On the basis thereof two preliminary issues
were raised for consideration. The returned candidates moved for
striking off the pleadings. Thereupon the original petitioners applied
for amendment of their election petitions which was strongly opposed
by the returened candidates. The preliminary objections, the applications for striking off the pleadings and the amendment applications
were heard together.
The two preliminary issues raised by the learned Judge hearing
A
B
c
D
the election petitions were (i) whether the election petitions were in
conformity with the requirements of Sections 81 and 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (R.P. Act), and the Rules framed
thereunder by the Gauhati High Court and (ii) whether rule 1 and the
other related rules and notes thereto enabling the filing of the Election
E
Petition before the Stamp Reporter assigned to the election court by
the learned Chief Justice were ultravires Article 329 of the Constitution and Section 169 read with Sections 80, 80A and 81 of the R.P.
Act. So far as the first objection was concerned, the returned candidates contended that the election petitions were photo-copies and
could not, therefore, be treated as election petitions as contemplated
F
by law, the copies of petitions served on the returned candidates were
not attested to be true copies of the original petitions as required by
Section 81(3), the copies served on them with the annexures were not
true copies of the original; the election petitions were not signed and
verified in the manner laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure
inasmuch as the source of information had not been disclosed in the G
verification or the affidavit in Form 25 as required by rule 94A of the
Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (the Rule) and no schedule of material particulars of corrupt practice had been annexed to the affidavit
purporting to be under Form 25. In regard to the second objection the
contention was that the presentation of the election petitions before
the Stamp Reporter was inconsistent with Sections 80, 80A and 81 of H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
760
SUPREME COt;RT REPORTS
[ 1991) 2 S.C.R.
the R.P. Act and Article 329 of the Constitution inasmuch as the law
requires that an election petition shall be presented to the High Court.
The learned Judge in the High Court overruled both the preliminary
objections holding, in the case of the first, that there was substantial
compliance with the requirements of the relevant provisions and on
the second point he ruled that the presentation of the election petition
to the Stamp Reporter appointed or authorised under the Rules was
presentation in accordance with the Rules and the same did not conflict with Article 329(b) of the Constitution. Thus both the preliminary
objections stood rejected.
The returned candidates had applied under Order VII Rule 16 of
the Code of Civil Procedure. (the Code), for striking out certain averments from the memo of the election petitions on the ground of failure
to disclose a cause of action. A prayer was also made for dismissal of
the petitions on that ground. The learned Judge in the High Court
rejected this contention observing that under the election law the High
Court is empowered to permit amendment of the election petition with
a view to amplifying the averments bearing on the question of corrupt
practice which it considers necessary for ensuring a fair and effective
trial of the election dispute. In this view of the matter the learned
Judge examined the averments of each paragraph in detail and
directed the deletion or modification of certain paragraphs, the averments wherein were vague of bereft of necessary particulars. He
directed that paragraphs 6, 9, 12, 13, 21, 22, 38 and 40 shall stand
deleted whereas paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 8, 14 to 20, 25 to 27, 30 to 37, 39
and 45 of the petition giving rise to CA No. 179 of 1991 shall stand
modified. All allegations against the election agent or other agents of
the returned candidates were ordered to be struck off. In other words
he directed that the allegations of corrupt practice shall be confined to
the returned candidates only. Similar orders were passed in the other
election petitions subject to the variation in number of paragraphs,
etc. For convenience we will take the pleadings of C.A. No. 179/91 as
representative since we are told that the averments in each election
petition are identical except for some variations here and there. Thus
the learned Judge rejected the preliminary objections and partly
allowed the application for striking off the averments in the election
petitions and partly permitted certain amendments to the election petitions. It is against the said order that the returned candidates have
approached this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.
At the time of admission of these appeals two questions were
H
formulated for examination and we will confine ourselves to them in
JF.A. SAPA v. SINGORA [AHMADI, l.l
761
the course of this Judgment. These two questions are as under:
A
(I)"The Election Petitions are liable to be dismissed in
limine under Section 83 of the Representation of the
People Act, 1951 as the affidavit filed by the Election
Petitioner in each case is not strictly in conformity with
Form 25, inasmuch as the verification as regards the averB
ments based on knowledge and the averments based on
information has not been made separately as required by
the said Form prescribed under Rule 95-A of the Representation of the People Rules, 1951; and
(II) The copies of the Election petitions served on
the petitioners herein (the respondents in the Election Petitions) not being true copies of the Election Petitions, the
Election Petitions were not maintainable and were liable to
be dismissed in limine in view of Section 81 read with
Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951."
The appellants herein are the returned candidates. Election Petitions were filed against them challenging their election on more or less
identical grounds. Since the Election Petitions are stated to be based
on a single master copy, we would refer to the averments of E.P. No. 7
of 1989 filed against the appellant F. Sapa of Civil Appeal No. 179 of
1991.
c
D
E
On a perusal of the cause title of the petition it becomes evident
that the name of the constituency and the particulars of the petitioner
and the respondents are left blank and filled in hand. The petition is
stated to be under Sections 80 and 81 of the R.P. Act. Paragraph 1
furnishes the dates concerning the election programme and the
F
particulars regarding the petitioner. In paragraph 2 the particulars
regarding the total votes, votes polled by each candidate, etc., have
been set out. While the various heads are typed, the figures are hand
written. The various typed heads would show that particulars upto five
respondents could be furnished even though in the said petition only
three respondents figure. That is why the columns regarding three
G
respondents have been filled in while serial Nos. 6 and 7 meant for
respondents 4 and 5 have been left blank. This supports the appellant's
say that one master copy of the election petition was prepared and
thereafter particulars in respect of each petitioner were filled in
hand. In paragraph 3 it is averred that the M.P.C.C.(I) had with the
consent and knowledge of the returned candidate conceived and
H
762
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1991] 2 S.C.R.
A executed the entire election compaign of the returned candidate between December 31, 1988 and January 19, 1989. So also the returned
candidate had on his own and with the help of M.P.C.C.(I),.its functionaries and workers organised and addressed public meetings and
undertook door to door convassing to promote his chances for success.
Thereafter the list of towns and villages where he held such meetings,
B etc"' are written in hand in the blank space left for that purpose. This is
also indicative of that factl that a master copy was prepared to challenge
all the fifteen elections. In paragtaphs 4 and 5 the details regarding the
compaign literature or material, such as stickers, hand-bills, pamphlets, press publications, etc., have been furnished. These have been
produced with their English translations at Annexures I to VI( a). It is
C averred that this compaign literature was widely distributed throughout the length and breadth of the entire constituency .between the
aforestated dates and was also air dropped by helicopter on January
20, 1989 throughout the constituency. These were also read out and
explained to the voters in the constituency during the aforesaid
period. After making this averment in paragraph 6, the petitioner
D
proceeds to add in paragraph 7 as under:
E
"That by publishing printing, circulating, distributing and
by reading out and explaining to the audiences including
the electors and their family members throughout the
length and breadth of the constituency as indicated above,
Respondent No. 1 (returned candidate) has been guilty of
corrupt practices under Section 123 .......... "
The details in regard to the M.P.C.C.(I)'s Election Manifesto
->.
produced at Annexure I (English translation-Annexure lA) have been
set out in paragraphs 8 to 22 along with comments, inferences, etc. In
F
paragraph 23 there is a mention of Annexure II which is merely a
repeat of Annexure I dealt with in the aforesaid paragraphs 8 to 22. In
paragraph 24 reference is to Annexure III which is merely the
summary of the Election Manifesto dealt with in the preceding
paragraphs. Paragraphs 25 to 29 refer to the leaflet-Operation JosnaAnnexure IV-and submission thereon. The next two paragraphs 30
G
and 31 contain reference is to a sticker-Aiinexure V-which appeals to
the religious sentiments of those following the Christian faith and
states: "Let us vote Mizoram Congress (i) for Mizos and Christians"-
which, it is contended, constitutes corrupt practice. Then come
paragraphs 32 to 40 which relate to a leaflet-Annexure VI-entitled
"what our vote will bring about" and then proceeds to add "Christian
H
Government" and "promise of visit of the holy land (Isreal)". then,
F.A. SAPA v. SINGORA [AHMADI, J.]
763
after referring to the activities aforestated, it is alleged in paragraph 41
A
that this has materially affected the election prospects of the other
.•
contesting candidates also. Paragraphs 42, 43 and 44 refer to Press
...
publications in 'India Today', 'Statesman -and the Assam Tribune and
Sentinals'. Paragraph 45 enumerates the grounds on which the election
of the returned candidate is liable to be set aside. Paragraphs 45A to
47 deal with sundry items. This in brief is the nature of the Election
B
Petition. The petition is verified as under:
"I. SANGURA the petitioner herein verify that the facts
-.i.-
mentioned in paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 5, 18, 19, 28, 35, 30, 33,
36, 38, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 45A, 46 & 47 are true to my
knowledge and facts mentioned in paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10, c
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 32,34, 35,
37, 40 & 41 are based on information received and believed
to be true. Grounds A, B & C and the legal suumissions are
based on legal advice. Verified at Guwahati on 7th March,
1989."
D
The verification is typed but the petitioner's name and the paragraph
numbers at both the places are hand written. It will be seen from the
above verification clause that paragraphs 3, 16, 17, 25, 31 & 39 have
not been verified at all either as true to knowledge or on information
and/or belief whereas paragraph 41 is mentioned at both the places. It
may also be noted at this stage that in regard to the second part of the E
verification based on 'information received' and 'believed to be true' it
is not clarified which of the paragraphs are based on 'information
..
received' (nor is the source of information disclosed) and which are
founded on 'believed to be true'.
Appended to the petition is the petitioner's typed affidavit, F
which runs into six paragraphs. The name of the petitioner, his age and
address appear to be filled in on a typewriter. In paragraph 2 of the
affidavit it is stated that the petitioner (unsuccessful candidate) has
alleged several corrupt practices on the part of the Respondent No. 1
~
(the returned candidate), his election agent and other agents and virtually the same phrase is repeated in paragraph 3. Then ;n paragraph 4 it G
is stated: 'for brevity the details of the corrupt practices alleged by me
which have been given in the Election Petition and are not being
repeated in this ·affidavit and the same may be treated and read as part
of this affidavit' and then the deponent proceeds to add 'The said
particulars and details of corrupt practices are contained in paragraphs
4 to 40 of the said election petition'. The word and figures '4 to 40' are H
' '
A
B
c
D
764
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
I 1991] 2 S.C.R.
written in hand after scoring out the words and figures '7 to 47'. Then
comes paragraph 5 which may be reproduced:
"That I solemnly state and affirm that all that has been
stated in the election petition by way of corrupt practices as
a correct to the best of my knowledge and to the information received by me and believed by me to be true".
It will be seen from the above that according to the election petitioner
the particulars and details of the corrupt practices are contained in
paragraphs 4 to 40 which also omits pargraph 3 which is, according to
the returned candidate/appellant crucial. Then in paragraph 5 extracted above the election petitioner states that all that he has stated in
regard to corrupt practices in his election petition (which according to
paragraph 4 are contained in paragraphs 4 to 40) is 'correct to the best
of my knowledge and to the information.received by me and believed
by me be true'. It is not stated which of the particulars contained in
paragraphs 4 to 40 are true to his knowledge, which are based on
information received (apart from disclosure of source of information)
and which he believes to be true. The affidavit is totally silent in regard
to paragraphs 1to3, and 41to47 of the election petition.
The returned candidate/the appellant herein, therefore, contends that paragraph 3 which is the most crucial paragraph in the entire
E
election petition inasmuch as it discloses the names of towns and villages as well as the period during which the alleged corrupt practices
were committed has been carefully, deliberately and scrupulously omitted both from the verification clause and the affidavit referred to
hereinabove for reasons best known to the election petitioner and,
contends the appellant, once this paragraph 3 is kept out of consideraF
tion, the Election Petition is, rendered 'a theoretical and unimaginative essay' on corrupt practice of appeal to religion. It is, therefore,
contended that failure to mention paragraph 3 of the election petition
in both the verification clause of the petition and the affidavit filed in
support thereof is fatal and cannot be cured particularly after the
expiry of the limitation period of 45 days.
G
The appellant further contends that the affidavit is not in Form
No. 25 prescribed under Rule 94A of the Rules and hence the affidavit
is no affidavit at all. Since Section 83 of the R.P. Act is mandatory and
strict compliance thereof is expected of an election petitioner failure to
adhere to Form No. 25 is fatal as the doctrine of substantial compH
liance has no place in election law but even if that doctrine could be
F.A. SAPA v. SINGORA [AHMADI. J.]
765
invoked to rescue the election petitioner out of the situation in which
he was placed himself, it was absolutely essential for him to clearly
state in his affidavit which paragraphs of the Election Petition are
based on his knowledge, which are based on information received and
which are based on his belief. Since even this is missing it is difficult to
A
B
say that there is substantial compliance assuming the doctrine has
application. Counsel for the appellant fairly stated that if the averments in the election petition had been sworn to in the above manner it
could perhaps be argued that failure to strictly follow Form 25 could be
excused on the doctrine of substantial compliance and the procedural
defect could be cured by an appropriate amendment. But, argued
counsel, the doctrine could never be pressed into service where the
petitioner has failed to disclose which part of the allegations regarding C
corrupt practice are based on knowledge, which on information
received and which on belief. Where there is failure to comply with
even the basic requirements of an affidavit, there can be no question of
substantial compliance; this being a case of non compliance, whatsoever. Where several paragraphs of the election petition remain unaffirmed under the verification clause as well as the affidavit, the D
unsworn allegation can have no legal existence and the election cotlrt
cannot take cognizance thereof. The further allegation was that the
election petitions being photocopies could not be entertained as valid
election petitions; that copies of the election petitions served on the
returned candidates were not attested as true copies of the original as
required by Section 81(3) and that the election petitions and the E
schedule and annexures were not signed and verified as required by
the Code. An election dispute founded on the allegation of corrupt
practice being quasi-criminal in nature calls for strict adherence to the
requirements of election law as is evident from Section 86(1) of R.P.
Act which provides for dismissal of an election petition which fails to
comply with the requirements of Sections 81, 82 or 117 of the said F
statute.
Before we set out the relevant provisions of the R.P. Act, reference may be made to Order VI Rule 15 of the Code which deals with
verification of pleadings. This rule is divided into three parts: the first
part begins with 'save as otherwise provided by any law for the time G
being in force' and then proceeds to add that every pleading shall be
verified by the party or by one of the parties or by some other person
acquainted with the facts of the case; the second part posits that every
person verifying shall specify what he verifies of his own knowledge
and what he verifies upon information received or believed to be true
by reference to paragraph numbers and the third part states that the H
766
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1991) 2 S.C.R.
A
verification shall be signed by the party making it. It was, however,
pointed out that by virtue of sub-section (3) of Section 1, the Code
extends to the whole of India except (a) the State of Jammu and
Kashmir and (b) the State of Nagaland and the tribal areas. The explanation defines the expression 'tribal areas' as territories which,
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
immediately before January 21, 1972 were included in the tribal are~s
of Assam as referred to in paragraph 20 of the Sixth Schedule to the
Constitution. Paragraph 20 says that the areas specified in Parts I, II
and III of the table shown below shall respectively be the tribal areas
within the State of Assam, the State of Meghalaya and the Union
Territory of Mizoram. Part III which is relevant for our purpose comprises (1) the Chakma District (2) the Lakher District and (3) the Pawi
District. During the British period the area was divided into North
Lushai Hills and South Lushai Hills but was later amalgamated into a
single District of Lushai Hill District and was made part of Assam and
was placed under the administrative charge of a Superintendent. On
our attaining independence, the Superintendent was replaced by a
Deputy Commissioner but the District of Lushai Hills continued to be
part of Assam. The Lushai Hill District was renamed Mizo District in
1954 by an Act of Parliament and was placed under a District council.
After a spell of .disturbances on the implementation of the NorthEastern Reorganisation Act, 1971, the Mizo District was upgraded
into a Union Territory and was renamed Mizoram. It was divided into
three districts, namely, (i) Aizawal ( i) Lunglei and (iii) Chhimtuipui.
The Mizo Hill District was replaced by Chakma, Lakher and Pawi
Districts which find a mention in Part III of the Table to paragraph
20 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution. It was, therefore, argued
that the provisions of the Code did not and do not apply to the State of
Mizoram. In support of this contention reliance is placed on three
decisions of this Court namely ( 1) Gurumayam S. Sarma V.K. Ongbi
Anisija Devi, Civil Appeal No. 659 of 1957 dated February 9, 1961 (2)
State of Nagaland V. Rattan Singh, [1966) 3 SCR 830 and (iii) V.L.
Roh/us V. Deputy Commissioner, Aizawal, [1970] 2 SCC 908. It is
unnecessary to notice these decisions in detail because Dr. Singhvi
does not seriously question this proposition. But, contends Dr.
Singhvi, if the Code did not apply to Mizoram in view of the above, it
applied to an election petition because Section 83(1)(c) obligates that
an election petition 'shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in
the manner laid down in the Code for the verification of pleadings'.
Therefore, even though the provisions do not extend to Mizoram by
virtue of Section 1(3) of the Code, counsel submitted they are applicable by incorporation to election petitions by the thrust of Section
83( l)(c) of the R.P. Act to the extent indicated therein.
>-·
F.A. SAPA v. SINGORA [AHMADI, J.]
767
And now to the relevant provisions of the R.P. Act and the
Rules framed thereunder. The expression 'corrupt practice' defined in
Section l(c) means any of the practices specified in Section 123.