# M. K.ARUNANIDHI ETC v. H.V. HANDE & ORS. ETC

- **Citation:** [1983] 2 S.C.R. 629
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1983-03-31
- **Bench:** A.P. Sen, E.S. Venk~Taramiah
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/m-k-arunanidhi-etc-v-h-v-hande-ors-etc-8447
- **Pages:** 36

## Headnote

Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951)-lnterpretation of~
Sub..,s. (I) of s./17-Two parts-Deposit of security man<iatory-Strict C0111Pliance
necessary-Mode of deposit dtrutory-Substantial compUance sufficient, sub-s.
A
B
(3) of s 81 read with sub-s. (2) of s.83-]$1ection petiMncCopi<S thereof-include
rchedu/e or annexure-/ntegral part-If inclutkd in pleadings-Copy of electjon
G
pttition .servcdwithout annexure-Non-compliance with sub-s. (3) of s.81--
Dismissal of p~titfon in limint.
Madras High Court (Election Petitions) Ru'es, 1967-Rules 8 a_nd 12 read
with Madras High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1956 order 31, r.2-lnterpretation
of-Cash deposited in Reserve Bank through pre-receiptsd challan prepared :0-;
by Hig/1 Court-Substantial comvliance.
Interpretation-Rule of-Statute mandatory or directory dep.nds upo11 intent
and not language pf the Act.
Respondent No. 1 in C.A. 38 of 1981 ftl•d an election petition under
the Representation of the People Act challenging the election of the appellant
to the State Legislative Assembly on various grounds. The petition was accom..
E
panied by <\pre-receipted chaltan prepared by the Accounts Department of
th~ High Court on the basis of the lodgment schedule initialled by the Assistant
Registrar II, showing that a sum of Rs. 2000!- had been cr~dited to the ac<;:ount
of the Registrar, High Court, Madras, in the Reseive Bank of India, MHdras,
as security for costs. The facts are more ·or less si.milar to all the appeals.
In C.A. 38/81, which has additional facts, the respondent pleaded. inlet alia,
F.
that the appellant was guilty of corrupt practice under sub-s.(6) of s, 123 of
the Act. He alleged tbat the appellant had erected about 50 fancy bannero each
costiDB not less than Rs. 1000/- and _if this expenditure of Rs. 50,000/- was
added to the amount already disclosed by him in his return of election
expenses it would exceed ttie prescribed limit thus an1ounting to a cofrupt
practice. The respondent filed a photograph of one such fancy banner with
the election petition but did not annex a copy of this photograp' t.O tt.e COpY
G'
of. the ~lection Petition furnished .to the appellant.
The appellant raistd two preliminary objections as to the maintainability
of the petition on the ground of non compliance with· ~ub-s.(1) of s. 117 read
with r. 8 of the Election Petitions Rules, and with oubCs.(3) of s. 81. High Court
overruled both the objections and held : (I) there was mbstantial compliance
ff
with sub-s. (1) of s. 117; and (2) the banner could not be treated· as· a11 intogF&l
part of the election petition but was merely a piece of evidence as to the nature
~nd trpe of the fancy banners erected br the appellant an~ therefore faUure
630
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1983) 2 S.C.R.
to supply a copy of its photograph to the appellant along with the copy of the
A
election petition did not amoum to a breach of sub-s.(l) of of s. 81.
B
c
D
E
F
On appeal, this Court by its order dated April 2, 19;1 remitted back
the issue with regard to non-compliance of subs. (1) ofs. 117 read with r. 8
for a decision afresh on the b;isis of the evidence to be led by the parties.
After_considering the eviderice, the High Court adhe_!ed to its earlier view.
The appellant contended in this Court: (I) the provisions of sub-s. (I)
of s. 117 were maridatory ; there was no distinction between the requiren1ent
as to the making of securily deposit and the manner of making such deposit ;
the words "in accordance with the rules of the High Court" in sub-s. 117 were
mandatory; r. 8 n1ust be read as forming part of sub·s. (1) of s. 117 by
incorporation ; in view of the definite stand taken by lhe respondent that he
had complied with r. 8 it was not possible to fall back on Order 31 of the
Madras High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1956. There was no compliance
with ·.r. 8 as the security amount was not deposited with the Registrrar in cash.
(2) There was no contpliance \vith the requirements of sub-s. (3) of s. 81 as
t

## Text

_Characters 0–39,957 of 86,744. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39957 for what follows._

;
629
M. K.ARUNANIDHI ETC.
V.
H.V. HANDE & ORS. ETC.
March 31, 1983
[A.P. SEN AND E.S. VENK~TARAMIAH, JJ.J
Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951)-lnterpretation of~
Sub..,s. (I) of s./17-Two parts-Deposit of security man<iatory-Strict C0111Pliance
necessary-Mode of deposit dtrutory-Substantial compUance sufficient, sub-s.
A
B
(3) of s 81 read with sub-s. (2) of s.83-]$1ection petiMncCopi<S thereof-include
rchedu/e or annexure-/ntegral part-If inclutkd in pleadings-Copy of electjon
G
pttition .servcdwithout annexure-Non-compliance with sub-s. (3) of s.81--
Dismissal of p~titfon in limint.
Madras High Court (Election Petitions) Ru'es, 1967-Rules 8 a_nd 12 read
with Madras High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1956 order 31, r.2-lnterpretation
of-Cash deposited in Reserve Bank through pre-receiptsd challan prepared :0-;
by Hig/1 Court-Substantial comvliance.
Interpretation-Rule of-Statute mandatory or directory dep.nds upo11 intent
and not language pf the Act.
Respondent No. 1 in C.A. 38 of 1981 ftl•d an election petition under
the Representation of the People Act challenging the election of the appellant
to the State Legislative Assembly on various grounds. The petition was accom..
E
panied by <\pre-receipted chaltan prepared by the Accounts Department of
th~ High Court on the basis of the lodgment schedule initialled by the Assistant
Registrar II, showing that a sum of Rs. 2000!- had been cr~dited to the ac<;:ount
of the Registrar, High Court, Madras, in the Reseive Bank of India, MHdras,
as security for costs. The facts are more ·or less si.milar to all the appeals.
In C.A. 38/81, which has additional facts, the respondent pleaded. inlet alia,
F.
that the appellant was guilty of corrupt practice under sub-s.(6) of s, 123 of
the Act. He alleged tbat the appellant had erected about 50 fancy bannero each
costiDB not less than Rs. 1000/- and _if this expenditure of Rs. 50,000/- was
added to the amount already disclosed by him in his return of election
expenses it would exceed ttie prescribed limit thus an1ounting to a cofrupt
practice. The respondent filed a photograph of one such fancy banner with
the election petition but did not annex a copy of this photograp' t.O tt.e COpY
G'
of. the ~lection Petition furnished .to the appellant.
The appellant raistd two preliminary objections as to the maintainability
of the petition on the ground of non compliance with· ~ub-s.(1) of s. 117 read
with r. 8 of the Election Petitions Rules, and with oubCs.(3) of s. 81. High Court
overruled both the objections and held : (I) there was mbstantial compliance
ff
with sub-s. (1) of s. 117; and (2) the banner could not be treated· as· a11 intogF&l
part of the election petition but was merely a piece of evidence as to the nature
~nd trpe of the fancy banners erected br the appellant an~ therefore faUure
630
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1983) 2 S.C.R.
to supply a copy of its photograph to the appellant along with the copy of the
A
election petition did not amoum to a breach of sub-s.(l) of of s. 81.
B
c
D
E
F
On appeal, this Court by its order dated April 2, 19;1 remitted back
the issue with regard to non-compliance of subs. (1) ofs. 117 read with r. 8
for a decision afresh on the b;isis of the evidence to be led by the parties.
After_considering the eviderice, the High Court adhe_!ed to its earlier view.
The appellant contended in this Court: (I) the provisions of sub-s. (I)
of s. 117 were maridatory ; there was no distinction between the requiren1ent
as to the making of securily deposit and the manner of making such deposit ;
the words "in accordance with the rules of the High Court" in sub-s. 117 were
mandatory; r. 8 n1ust be read as forming part of sub·s. (1) of s. 117 by
incorporation ; in view of the definite stand taken by lhe respondent that he
had complied with r. 8 it was not possible to fall back on Order 31 of the
Madras High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1956. There was no compliance
with ·.r. 8 as the security amount was not deposited with the Registrrar in cash.
(2) There was no contpliance \vith the requirements of sub-s. (3) of s. 81 as
the copy of the election petition served on hitn was not accon1panied by a copy
of the photograph of the fancy banner.
Dismissing all the appeals and special leave petitions except C.A. 38/81
which partly succeeds and is allo,ved.
HELD:. l(a). Sub-s. (1) of s. 117 is in two parts. The first part provides
that at the time of presenting an election petition, the petitioner shall deposit
in the High Court a sum of Rs. 2000 as security for the costs of the petition,
and the second is that such deposit shall be made in the Jiigh Court in
accordance wHh the rules of the High Court. The requirement regarding the
n1aking of a security deposit of Rs. 2000 in the High Court is mandatory, the
non compliance of which must entail dismissal iJJ limine of the election petition
under sub-s. (1) of s. 86 of Act. But the requirement of its deposit in the
High Court in accordance with rules of the High Court is clearly directory.
The essence of sub·s. (1) of s. 117 is that at the ti1ne of filing an election petition
the petitioner sho.uld furnish security for the costs of the petition. Section 117
should not be strictly or technically construed and substantial compliance with
its requirements should be treated as sufficient. [645-F, 651-E, 652-B]
1(b). A literal and mechanical interpretation of r. 8. of the Election
Petitions Rules would lead to manifest absurdity as it wo-Uld imply that in every
case the election petitioner shall have to pay to the Registrar a sum of
G
Rs. 2000 in cash towards security for cost~ and obtain a receipt from him there.
for. Rule 8 is silent as to how the cash is to be handled. Inasmuch as r. 8
does not lay down the procedure regulating the manner of deposit of cash, the
matter fails to be governed by r. 2 of Order 31 of the Madras High Court
(Original Side) Rules, 1956 by reason of r. 12 of the Election Petitions Rules.
Although Order 31, r. 2 does not in terms apply because Order JI relates to
ff
''payment into court of moneys to the credit of civil court deposits and account
of suitors' money", and though no lodgment schedule can be prepared under
r. 2 except in pursuance of a deeree or order passed by the High Court i.e. in
relation to some proce~ding pending, or disposed of, by the High Court~ still
M. KARUNAN!DHI v. H.V. HANDE
631
by virtue of r. 12 of the Election Petitions Rule that is the procedure to be
adopted for deposit of Rs. 2000 in the High Court in cash i.e. by crediting the
A
amount on the strength of a pre-receipted· challan prepared by the Accounts
,.,__ ~
Department on the basis of a lodgment'schedule.(649 A·E]
•
In the present case the Assistant Registrar II, Madras High Court,
directed that the money be deposited to the credit of the Registrar of the
High Court in the Reserve Bank of India. The election petitioner- deposited
Rs. 2000 with a pre-receipted challan issμed by the Accounts Department to
B
the credit of the Registrar of the High Court and the Reserve Bank of India
made the endorsement "received in cash". It must be regarded that the
payment was made in the High Court and the pre-receipted challan bearing
~
the endorsen1ent of the Reserve Bank must be treated as the receipt of the
Registrar in terms of r. 8, the Reserve Bank acting as an agent of the High
Court. The procedure adopted .by Assistant Registrar II, was in conforn1ity
C
with r. 8. There was due compliance with the requirements of sub-s. (1) of
s. 117 of the Act read with r. 8 of the Election Petitions Rules. [649-B, E-H]
K. Kamaraja Nadar v. Kunju Thevar & Ors .. [1959] SCR 583 ; Chandrika
Prasad Tripathi v. Siv Frasad Chanpilria & Ors .. [1959] 2 Suppl. SCR 527; Om
Prabha Jain v. Gian Chand & Anr,, [1959] 2 Suppl. SCR 516; Budhi Nath Jha
v. Mani/al Jadav, 22 ELR 86 ; Charan Lal Sahu v. Nandkishore Bhatt & Ors.,
[1974] I SCR 294; Aeltemesh Rein v. Chandulal Chandrakar & Ors., [1981]
3 SCR 142, referred to.
2 (a). Sub-s. (3) of section 81 of the Act is in two part. The first part provides that every election petition shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are respondents ment!oned in the petition and the second part relates
to the n1anner ln. which such copy shall be attested by the petitioner under his
his own signature to be a true c.opy of the petition. The first part is mand;ttory in character and non-cotnpliance wiht it was fatal to the p'etition in view
of sub·s. (I) of s. 86. [655.E, 659·F]
2 (b). The words "copies thereof" in sub-s. (3) of s. 81 read in the
i;ontext of sub-s. (2) of s. 83 roust necessarily refer not
only to the
election petition Proper but also to schedules or annexures _thereto containing
particulars of any corrupt practice alleged therein. Sub-s. (2) of s. 83 applies
only to a schedule or annexure which is an integral part of the election petition
and not a document which is produced as evidence of the averments of the
election petition. (663-B-C, 656 F-G]
D
E
F
In the instant case, the test to be applied in determining whether the
G
photograph referred to in the election petition is an integral part of the election
petition or was merely a piece of evidence in proof of the allegations contained
therein, depends on whether it is a part of the pleadings. The photograph
which gives a visual description of the fancy banner, the cost of which at a
mere look would show that the expenditure in setting up each such banner
would be Rs. 1000/· or more, was not merely a document accompanying the
H
election petition but was a part and parcel of the pleading contained therein.
The averment contained in the election petition would be incomplete as regards
\he
allc~ation of the corru~t prncticc committed br the appellant without a
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
632
SUPREME COUllT llEPOllTS
[1983] 2 s.c.R.
copy of the photograph being supplied with a copy of the election petiton.
Merely alleging that the appellant had put up fancy banners would be .of
no avail unless there was a description of the banner itself together with the
slogan. The failure to supply a copy of'the photograph along with a copy of
the elect~on petition to the appellant amounted to non-compliance of sub-s. (3)
of s. 81,(661B,654 F, 661 C,654 C, 655 D, 663 A-B, F-GJ
Sahodrahai Rai v. Ram Singh Aharwar, [1968] 3 SCR 13, held inapplicable.]
Ch. Subbarao v. Member, Election Tribunal. Hyderabad, [ 1964] 6 SCR 213;
Jagat Klshore Prasad Narayn Singh v. Raj Kumar Poddar & Ors. [1971] I SCR
821; Satya Narain v. Dhuja Ram & Ors., [1974) 3 SCR 20 and Kama/am (M) v.
Dr. V.A. Syed Mohamad, [1978] 3 SCR 446, referred to:
Sharif-ud-din v. Abdul Gani lone, [1980] I SCR 1176, distinguished.
3. It is aJways important to bear the distinction bet».een mandatory and
directory provisions of :i statute. The general rule of interpretation is wellknown· and 1t is but an aid for ascertaining the true int.ention of the legislatute
which is the determining factor and that must ultimately depend on the context.
The question as to whether a statute is maddatory or directory, depends upon
the _intent of the legislature and not upOn the language in which the intent is
~lothed, The meaning and intention of the legislature must govern, and
these rnllst be ascertained not onJy from the words used, but also by considering its object and consequences which would follow from construing it one
way or the other.
An .ibsolute enactment must be obeyed or fulfilled exactly
but-it is suffic,ient if a directory enactment be obeyed or fulfilled substantially.
An enactment in form mandatory might in substance be directory and the
use of the word "shall" does not conclude the matter. [641 E-H, 646 A-CJ
N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Naniakkal, 11952] SCR 218;
Wo/yerlwmpton New Water Works Company v. Hawkesford, [1359] 6 CB (NS)
336 at 356 ; Jagan Nat11 v. Jaswant Singh & Ors., [1954] SCR 892 ; Maxwell on
the Interpretation of Statutes, 12th
Edn. p. 314; Crawford on 'Statut,..ry
Construe.lion' p. 516; State of U.P. v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastva, [1958] SCR
533; State of U.P. & Ors. v. Babu Ram Upadhya, [1961] 2 ~CR 679; Raza
Buiand Suga' Co. Ltd. v. Municipal Board, Rampur, [1965] 2 SCR 970 and
Montreal Street Railway Co1npany v. !Vormandin LR {1917) AC 170, referred to.
CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 38(NCE)
of 1981.
Appeal by Special leave from the judgment a'\d Order dated
the !st January·, 1980 of the Madras High Court in Application
No. 4309 of 1980 in Election Petition No. 17 of 1980.
AND
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 1580 of 1981
From the Judgment and. Order dated the 13th January, 1981
. of the Madras High Court in Election Petition No, 13of1980,
,~,,-
-
M. KA!l.UNANIDHI. v .. H.V HANDE (Sen, J.)
633
AND
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 5178 of 1981.
•
From the Judgment and Order. dated .the 8th July, 1981 of
the Madras High Court in Application No. 1967of1981 in Election
Petition No. 14 of 1980.
AND
Civil Appeal No. 4216(NCE) of 1982.
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated
C
the 22nd October, 1982 of the Madras High Court in Application
No. 265of1981 in Election Petition No. 5 of 1980.
AND
Civil Appeal No. 1170of1981.
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated
the 4th February, 1981 of the Madras ·High Court in Application
·No. 189 of 1981 in Election Petition No. 7 of 1980.
IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 38/81
G. Ramaswamy, K. Rajendra Chowdhury, N.A. Subhramanyam
and Mahabir Singh for the Appellant.
E
NT "
l · R K G
VJ "'
·
d Bhaskar "'hankar F
.. ranama at,
. . arg, .. rranc1s an
"'
for the Respondent.
A.V. Rangam for Respondent No. 10.
A.T.M. Sampath for the intervener.
G
IN SLP (C) NO. 1580 OF 1981
C.S. Vaidyanathan for the Petitioner.
A.T.M. Sampath for Respondent No. I.
A. V. Rangam for Respondent No. 2, ·
634
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1983) 2 S.C.R.
A
IN SLP(C) NO. 5178 of 1981
K.R. Nambiar for the Petitioner.
f.N. Rama/ingam for the Respondent.
Jl
INC.A. NO. 1170of1981
G. Ramaswamy and A.S. Nambiar for the Appellant.
A.T.M. Sampath for Respondent No. 1.
C
"A. V. Rangain for Respondent No. 2.
D
E
F
G
H
IN CA. NO. 4216 of 1980
A.S. Nambiar and P. Parmeswaran for the Appellant.
A.T.M. Sampath for Respondent.
A. V. Rangam for Respondent. .
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SEN J. These appeals by special ·Jeave and the connected
special leave petitions from the judgment and orders of the High
Court of Madras raise · the same question and therefore they are
disposed of by this common judgment. In Civil Appeal No. 38
(NCE) of 1981, there is a further question involved.
The facts are more or less similarin all these appeals, except
that in Civil Appeal No. 38(NCE) of 1981 there are certain
additional facts. It will suffice for our purposes tci set out the facts
giving rise to that appeal.
At the last general election to the State Legislative Assembly
of Tamil Nadu from the Anna Nagar Assembly Constituency No. 8
held in May 1980, the appellant, M. Karunanidhi, leader of the
Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam party, contested as a candidate of
that party and secured 51290 votes. As against this, the respondent
Dr. H.V. Hande sponsored as a candidate by the All India Anna
Dravida Munne\ra ~azhagam secured 50591 votes. On June l, 1980
·-
••
•
' •
M. KARU!;ANIDHI v. H.V. HANDE (Sen, J.)
635.
the appellant, M. Karunanidhi, was consequently declared elected
by a margin of 699 votes. The last date for filing an election A.
petition to challenge his election was July 16, 1980. On July 14, 1980
the respondent, Dr. H. V. Han de, filed an election petition under
s. 81 read with s.100 of the Representation of People Act 1951
(for the sake of brevity hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') challenging the election of the appellant on various grounds. The election B
petition was accompanied by a pre-receipted challan prepared by the
Accounts Department of the High Court on the basis of a lodgment
schedule initialled by the Assistant Registrar II, High Court, showing
that a sum of Rs. 2,000 had been credited on July 11, 1980, to the
account of the Registrar, High Court, Madras, in the Reserve Bank
oflndia, Madras, as security for costs along with ihe lodgment
C
schedule signed by the Assistant Registrar II.
·
The respondent pleaded, inter a/ia, in paragraph 18 of the
petition that the appellant was guilty of corrupt practice under
sub-s.(6) of s. 123 of the Act by incurring or authorising expenditure D
in contravention of s. 77. It was alleged that he had failed to disclose
certain items of expenditure in his statement of election expenses
. filed by him in connection with the election as detailed m subparagraphs (a) to (e) of paragraph 18 of the petition. The allegation
in paragraph 18(b) related to an expenditure of about Rs. 50,000 in
erecting fancy banners throughout the constituency and it was alleged E
that there were such fancy banners about 50 in number, the cost
of each banner being not less than Rs. 1,000 It was averred in
paragraph 18(b) that a photograph of one such banner was filed
along with the petition. Admittedly, though the respondent had filed.
with the election petition a photograph of one such banner, a copy F
of the photograph was not annexed to the copy of the petition
furnished to the appellant.
On October 30, 1980 the appellant filed his written statement.
He pleaded, inter a/ia, that the election petition was liable to be G
dismissed in limine under sub-s. (I) of s. 86 due to non-compliance
with the requirements of sub-s.(1) of s.117 of the Act read with
rule 8 of the Madras High Court (Election Petitions) Rules, 1967,
for the reason that there was no deposit of Rs. 2,000 in cash in the
High Court as security for costs, and also for non-compliance with H·
the requirements of sub-s.(3) of s. 81 of the Act as the copy of the
election petition served on the appellant was not accompanied by. a
copy of the photograpl:\ of the alleged fancy banner <1rnexed to the
,
636
SUPREMll COURT RllPORTS
(1983) 2 S.C.R.
petition, as alleged in paragraph 18(b) of the petition. The appellant
A
accordingly raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability
+ __,,.
B
c
D
E
F
G
of the election petition.
The High Court by its order dated December 1, 1980, overruled both the preliminary objections. In regard to the objection
based on sub-s'.(l)ofs.117 of the Act read with'Rule 8 of the
Madras High Court (Election Petitions) Rules, 1967 (for short 'the
Election Petitions Rules'), the High Court held that a sum of
Rs. '2,000 as security amount had beeu deposited by the respondent
in the Reserve Bank of India to the credit of the Registrar, High
Court, at the instance of the High Court, and in accordance with
the procedure followed for deposit of amounts in court. In reaching
that conclusion,' the High Court relied upon the lodgment schedule
presented by K. Subramaniam, counsel for the respondent, which
had been prepared in the Registry by the Assistant Registrar II, and
the challan in triplicate prepared by the Accounts Department of the
High Court and signed by the official referee specifying the amount
and the date within which it had to be deposited. It held that the
requirements of sub-s,(J} of s. 117 of the Act read with rule 8 of the
Election Petitions Rules for the making of the deposit of Rs.2,000
as security for costs in the High Court were mandatory but the
manner of making such deposit was directory and as the amount of
Rs, 2,000 had, in fact, been deposited to the credit of the Registrar,
High Court, within the time allowed therefor, there was substantial
compliance with the requirements of sub-s, (I) of s.117 of the Act.
As regards the objection based on the non-supply of a copy 'Of the
photograph of the fancy banner adverted to in paragraph 18(b), the
High Court relying upon the decision of this court in Sahodrabai Rai
v.Ram Singh Aharwar,(') held that the banner could not be treated to
be an integral part of the election petition but was merely a piece
of evidence as to the nature and type of fancy banners erected by
the appellant and therefore failure to supply a copy of the photograph
to the appellant did not amount to a breach of the provisions
contained in sub-s.(3) of s. 81 of the Act. These findings were
reached by the High Court on the basis of the affidavits filed by the
parties and the material on record. The High Court had also before
H it a report from the Registry as to the procedure followed with regard
to Court deposits :
(I) [1968] 3 SCR 13.
..
\,
(
.
l \.-
>
i.i. KARUNANlDHI ¥. H.V. HANDE (S~n, J.)
637
"Any person desirous of paying money into Court
shall present a lodgement schedule, duly vouched by the
concerned Section. regarding the quantum and the time
limit, and initialled by the Officers of Original Side or
Appellate side as .the case may be, to the Accounts
Department for the issue of a Challan to enable the party
to make the payment into Reserve Bank of India, Madras
to the credit of the case concerned. On the presentation
of the Lodgement Schedule to the Accounts Department
a Challan in triplicate specifying the amount and the date
within which it should be paid will be issued by the
Accounts Department to the person, desirous of ·making
·such payment, who will deliver the Challan to the Bank.
The Bank in turn after deposit deliver one part of the
Challan duly signed to the person making the payment.
On the production of the Challan, the Accounts Department will make necessary credit entries in the ledgers and
the receipt registers. The remaining two parts of the
Cballan are sent by Reserve Bank of India, Madras to
Pay and Accounts Office, which in turn sends one part of
it to this Office. Sometimes it takes about one or two
months to receive the· said Challan from the Pay and
Accounts Office. In cases where advocates do not produce
one part of Challan in Accounts Department, credit
entries are made on the strength of the Cballan from Pay
and Accounts Office and the pass book from the Reserve
Bank of India, Madras.
Official receipt for such deposits arc issued under
the signature of the Assistant Registrar (Original Side) for
Original Side Deposits and of the Deputy Registrar for
Appellate Side Deposits to such of those parties who
produce one part of the Challan and make a request for
official receipt to that effect.
It is also submitted that Accounts Department will
not receive cash without specific orders to that ·effect.
This is the procedure that is being followed by the
Accounts Section of High Court with regard to Court.
A
B
D
E
F
G
Deposits."
H
It is against this order of the High Court that this appeal was
filed. The appeal was first heard in April 1981, and this Court by
A
B
D
E
F
H
SUPREME COURT !UlPORTS
[i 983j :2 S.C.R,
its order dated April 2, 1981, remitted back the issue with regard
to the alleged non-compliance with the requirements of sub-s.(J)
of s. 117 read with rule 8 of the Election Petitions Rules to the High
Court for a deci.sion afresh, as it was felt that the point raised was
primarily a matter of evidence, but the parties had unfortunately not
led any evidence on the point. It accordingly directed the Hip Court
to record the evidence that may be adduced as regards the practice
and procedure followed by the High Court in regard to the making
of an election petition under s. 81 of the Act and the manner in
which the security amount of Rs. 2,000 was deposited in the High
Court in compliance with the requirements of sub-s.(I) of s.117 of
the Act read with rule 8 of the Election Petitions Rules.
After the issue was remitted, the High Court allowed the
parties to lead their evidence both oral as well as documentary and
has recorded its findings dated July 20, 1981. The High Court adhered
to its earlier view that on a construction of sub-s. (1) s. 117 of the
Act, the factum of making of deposit of Rs. 2,000 as security for
costs in the High Court was mandatory but the manner of making
such deposit was directory and further held that although there was
no strict or literal compliance with the requirements of rule 8 of the
Election Petitions Rules, there had been substantial compliance with
the requirements of sub-s.(1 i of s.117 of the Act, in that the
requisite amount of Rs. 2,000 had actually been deposited to the
credit of the Registrar, High CourJ, in the Reserve Bank of India on
July 11, 1980, that is, before the election petition was filed on July
14, 1980, and the same was available for payment of costs. In the
connected cases also, the High Court reached the same conclusion
after taking evidence 'or the respective parties.
It appears from the evidence adduced in all these cases that
after the general elections to the State Legislative Assembly of
Tamil Nadu, the then Chief Justice Ismail, C.J., nominated K.S.
Natarajan (P.W. 4) Assistant Registrar II, to deal with all election
petitio1,1s filed under s. 81 of the Act. The evidence of P.W. 4 shows
that he met the officer in charge of the Accounts Department of the
High Court and ascertained the procedure to be· followed for
making the security deposit of Rs. 2,000/- in cash in.the High Court.
He was informed by the officer in charge that the party filing the
election petition should bring the lodgment schedule. duly. filed and
that P. W.4 should inti al it and then the iodgment schedule had to
---
~- _,,,_,_
-1.
Iii. kAlttiNANillflh. H.V. HANDI!' (Sen, J.)
63!!.
be taken to the Accounts Department. He was told that the
Accounts Department would prepare a challan in triplicate and hand A ,
over the same to the party for depositing the money in the Reserve
Bank of India in the q,ame of the Registrar, High Court, and that
the duplicate challan must be filed along with the election petinbh; ,
He deposed that the same procedure was adopted in ,all the cases. The
lodgment ,schedule, Ex P-2B; prepared by K. Subrazrianiam (P.W.6), &,.,
counsel for the respondent, had been initialled by him and that'he
had also put the date July 14, 1980 by which date the deposit had to
be made
K. Subramaniam (P.W.6), counsel for the , respondent,
stated that the respondent had given him the amount of Rs. 2,000
in the first week of July 1980, and accompanied by an authorised
representative of the respondent, he took the lodgement schedule C'.
Ex. P-2B to K.S. Nata;ajan (P. W.4), Assistant Registrar II, who
initialled the same and indicated the date by which the deposit was
to be made. He then took the lodgment schedule to the Accounts
Department where S. Setuiaj (P.W.1) working as challan issuing
clerk, prepared the challan in triplicate. Thereafter, he took the I),
challan in triplicate to the Reserve Bank of India and deposited the
amount of Rs. 2,000 in cash in the name of the Registrar, High
Court, and the duplicate copy of the challan was handed over to him.
The duplicate copy of the challan, Ex. P-2C, bears the seal ofthe ·
Reserve Bank of India, with the endorsement 'received,in cash' and
is dated July 11, 1980. The duplicate copy of the challan Ex P-2C, E
was filed along with the election petition.
,
At this point, it , is necessary to refer to the entries of the
duplicate copy of the challan. Column l of the challan bears the E
beading "By whom paid and name (or designation) and address of
tlie person on whose behalf money is paid" and· the entry reads
"Registrar, High Court, Madras" and bears the seal of the High
Court. Column 2 reads "On what account with authority, if any"
and the entry bears the name of the counsel for the election ,petitioner
and mentions that the amount was deposited as security deposit G
, for the 'election petition. Column 3 bears tlie beading "Amount"
and the amount deposited in each case is entered as Rs. 2,000. The
last column bears the headieg "Head of account" and, gives the head
as "P.D.A/c, Registrar, High Court,' Madras"., A bare reading of
the challans would show that the amount of Rs. 2,000 as security for fl
costs was received by the High Court and credited to its own
account. When the High Court asked the counsel fgr the electign
640:
."laiPRH!B COURT RlPORTS
.
ll983j :i S.C.R.
petitioner to "credit the amount in· the Reserve Bank ·along with the ·
A pre-receipted.' challan, it must be deemed that the Reserve Bank was
acting as an : agent of the High Court All the challans bear the··
seal of the Reserve Bank of India with the el\dorsement .. "received: in
cash',_.
· -
'
-
.._.__
· .
··Article 3Z9(b) ·of the. C~n~titutio~. -p~ovides, thai nd ~lectimi. iJ ·
.B . either House of Parliament. or to the House or either House of the
Legislature of the , State shall be. called .in·. question. except by an '
election petition presented to such authority and in ·such. manner as -
may be p,rovided, by or. under' any: law. ma.de ·bY. the appropriate
. Legislature. The Representation of the, people Act;·1951 is a law
C .· made by Parliament under. Art. 327. of the. Constitution to. provide.
for adjudication of disputes regarding, such elections .. Part VI of the:
,_.._
Act is headed. "Disputes regarding Ctections'.• and Chapter II in. 'that'
Part. deals with the presentation· of election ·petitions to the High
Court. Section. 80 provides that rio . election_ shall' be · called iii
question except by 'an election petition pre;ented in accordance with
D; the: provisions. of ...Part YI. Section · 80A .provides that the Court
. having jurisdiction to try an election petiiion shall be 'the High Court.
In.N.P: Ponnuswami v. Returning· Officer, Namakkal;t') this Court
· restated the principle that the right to vote.or stand as a candidate
for election is not a civil right but is a creature. 'of statute or special
E' law and.must be.subject to the limitations im~osed by it. .The· Court.
having regard to the non o.bstante i:lause in Art. .· 329 (b) held that the
Act having furnished a complete Code for' challenging an election,
· the election must be challenged in the manner provided. The Court ·
relied. upon the dictum .. of Willes, J. in Wolverhampton New Water
War.b Comp(u(y v. Hawkesfo;d(') which.has b'ecome classical. It is .
....
F· now well recognised that where a right or liability is created by a .
. statute which. gives a special remedy for ellforcing it, the remedy .
+
provided by that statute only must be availed of.
. ,
.
.
-
. -
- .
,
.
' . ...
'
' - . I .
. ~ .
.. >'• As· obseNed by this Court in Jagan Nath v. 1aswan1 Singh &
G Ors:,(•) an election contest is noi an· action at law or a suit in equity
~ut is a purely statutory proceeding unknown to the common law and
_ l
that the Court possesses no· common law power .. It also added that::
H
'
;.
'
•
-
"·.
"'
•
'
'
.', ,
~.
'r
'' ''
. · "It is a.sound principle of natural ju~tice that the suceess · ..
: , of a candidate who has won at an election. should ·n.ot ~be.. ·
:,_·_.
'(1). [19521 SCR 218
(2) 1 [18591 6 CB (NS) 336 at 356
(3) [1954] SCR 892
.
.
·,.
.'.'
. - '·
' -- . ~
. -.
-
~- -
r.-' :.-
'
..) : ;
i • , ; ~ -: - .
. :.. _ _.
• .
,
·.,_
.....
---·
l.1. KARUNANIDHI v: H;V:HANDB. (Sen, J.)
641
lightly. interfered with and any petition. seeking such
interference .must strictly conform· to the requirements of
A
the-law."·
, -
. At the same time, the Court added a note of caution·:
. "It is always to· he borne in mind. that though the .
! election of a successful candidate is not to be lighiiy
. interfered with, one of the essentials' of that law is aiso to
· safeguared the purity of the election process and also. to
see that people do not get elected by flagrant breaches of.
that law. or by corrupt practices. In cases wh~re.the
election law. does not prescribe the consequence or does
not lay. down penalty · for non-compliance with certain
·procedu~al requirements of that law, the. jurisdiction of
the tribunal entrusted with the trial of the case is not .
affected." ·
- .
- '
....
B
There are two questions that fall for determination. The first D
is whether the election: petition filed by the respondent under s.81
re~d with s. 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 was
·liable to be dismissed in limine under sub·s. (I) of s.86 on the ground
that .·there was non-compliance: with the· requirements of sub-s. (!)
of s.117 of the- Act read with r.8 of the Election Petitions Rules:
The second is whether ·the election petition is also liable to be
dismissed unaer sub-s. (I) ofs.86 of the Act inasmuch as the copy
of the. dectioa< petition furnished· to the appellaat was not accompanied by a copy of the photograph of the fancy banner· referred
to in paragraph 18(b) of the petition as required by sub-s. (3) of s.81.
of the· Act.
.
·
. "
' '
" · · - · ·· .. ' "
·
"
·
.•.
In. view of the. arg_uments addressed to · us, it is necessary to
set out a few of the relevant provisions . which bear upon the points
raised .. S.81 deals with presentation ofelectiori petitions.;lt run•:
I
.
,
I
.. 1''
"81. (I) An election petition calling in question any
election may be presented on one or. more of the grounds
specified in sub-section(!) of section 100 and section 101
. to. the. ·High. Court by any candidate: at such election' or
'any elector . within forty-five days from,' but not earlier
tJ:ian, the date of election of the returned candidate; or if
there are more than one returned candidate at the election
, and the dates of their electioit are different; the tater of
.. thosetwodates;,~·:· ... :.-. •. '
·c•· :-s·:--
"
"'·
-
-..._.-.!
E
F
I
A
B
.. SUPllEldB COURT REPC>llTS .
fl9a3) 2 S.C.R.
. . Explanation-In this sub·section, 'elector' means a
person who was entitled to vote at the election to which
the election petition relates, whether he has voted at
such election or not.
(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 ow.n signature to be a true copy
of the petition."
·
Section 82 which is the next section Jays down who shall be
C
parties to an election petition. We need not refer to this section in
detail since we are not concerned with it. S.83 is however material
and it provides what shall be the contents of an election petition. It
reads :
D
E
F
G
"'83 (I) 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 pract•
icethat the petitioner alleges, including as full a state·
ment 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 j
and
( c) shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the
manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (5 of 1908) for the verification of pleadings:
Provided that where the petitioner alleges any corrupt
practice, the petition shall also be accompanied by an
affidavit in the prescribed form in support of the allega·
tion of such corrupt practice and the particulars thereof.
(2) Any schedule or annexure to the petition shall also
be signed by the petitioner and verified in the same manner
H
as the petition."
The next chapter which is Chapter III deals with the trial of
;... ""'
election petitions but here we are concerned only with sub·s. (I) of
M. KARUNANIPHI V. ll.V. l!Ai;!DB (Sen, J.)
·1\43
s. 86 which interdicts that the High Court shall, in certain circum•
stances, dismiss an election petition in limine. Sub-s. (!) of s. 86 A
provides as follows :
"86 (I} The High Court shall dismis an election
petition which does not comply with the provisions of.
section 81 or section 82 or section 117.
Explanation : An order of the High Court dis]llissing
an election petition under this sub-section shall be deemed
to be an order made under clause (a) of section 98."
B
io:-
Sub-s. (I) of s. 117 which is important for our purposes is in C
these terms :
"117, Security for costs-
(1) At the time of presenting an election petition, the
petitioner shall deposit in the High Court in accorD
dance with the Rules of the High Court a sum of
two thousand rupees as security for the costs of the
petition."
Rule 8 of the Madras High Court (Election Petitions) Rules,
1967 framed by the High Court under Art. 225 of the Constitution E
which is also important for the purposes of these cases provides as
· follows :
"8. An Election Petitioner before presenting his
Election Petition shall deposit in the High Court in cash a
sum of two thousand rupees towards security for costs as
provided for under Section 117 of the Act and shall
produce the receipt of the Registrar for the . same at the
time of presentation of the petition,"
F
Rule 12 of the Election Petitions Rules is also relevant and G
reads :
"12. Subject to the foregoing rules and to the extent
they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act
the Rules of the High Cou~t, 1956 (Original Side). shall,
as far as practicable, be observed in all Election Petitions
and all applications taken in respect of thein."
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
H
SlJP!tEMi COURT REPORTS
jl983J 2 S.C.R.
Taking up the contentions in the order in which they were
advanced, we shall first deal with the submission that there was
non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of sub-s. (I) of
s. 117 of the Act read with r.8 of the Election Petitions Rules framed
by the High Court, which is common to· all these cases. The factum
of deposit of Rs. 2000/- in each of these cases on the strength of
pre-receipted challans issued by the Accounts Department of the
High Court in the Reserve Bank of India to the credit of lhe
Registrar, High Court, Madras as security for costs well within the
period of limitation for filing the election petition is not in dispute
and the controversy turns on the question whether the deposit of the
security amount was in accordance with the rules of the High Court.
There are different sets of rules framed by different High Courts
under Art. 225 of the Constilution regulating the practice and
procedure to be observed in all matters coming bef9re the High
Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under s.80A of the Act: The
words "in accordance with the rules" must therefore connote
"according to the procedure prescribed by the High Court". The
mode of making deposit must necessarily be an internal matter of the
concerned High Court.
In support of this appeal, learned counsel for the appellant
contends that the provisions of sub-s. (I) of s.117 of the Act are
mandatory, non-compliance of which will entail dismissal of the
election petition in /imine under sub-s. (1} of s.86 of he Act. It is
urged that uo distinction can be drawn between the requirement as
to the making of a security deposit in the High Court under sub-s.
(I) of s.117 and the manner of making such deposit and sub·s. (I)
of s. I 17 cannot be dissected into two parts, one part being treated as
mandatory and the other as directory.
It is further urged that the ·
words "in accordance with the rules of the High Court under sub-s.
(I) of s.117" were .as much a mandatory requirement as ihe requirement that the election petitioner shall, at the time of presenting an
election petition, deposit in the High Court a sum of Rs. 2000/- as
security for the costs of the petition. There is therefore no warrant
for the view taken by the High Court that the factum of deposit
of the security amount of Rs. 2000/- in the High Court was
mandatory and not the manner in which the security deposit was
made. It is also urged that r.8 of the Election petitions Rules
framed by the High Court under Art. 225 to regulate the mode of
making deposit must be read as forming part of sub-s.( I) of s.117
by incorporation and therefore the only manner prescribed is by
¥----
M. KARUNANIDHI '· H. v. HANDB (Sen, J.)
645
jllaking deposit in cash with the Registrar. When a statute requires
that something shall be done in a particular manner or from expressly A
declaring what ihall be the consequence of non-compliance with it,
the requirement must be regarded as imperative.