Case Note & Summary
The case involved an election petition filed by Aeltemesh Rein, who contested the Lok Sabha elections from the Durg Parliamentary Constituency in January 1980. The respondent, Chandulal Chandrakar, was declared the successful candidate. Rein filed an election petition under section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, claiming to have deposited the required security amount of Rs. 2,000 as mandated by section 117, although no such deposit was actually made. The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the petition for non-compliance with section 117, leading to Rein's appeal to the Supreme Court. The appellant contended that sections 86 and 117 were ultra vires Article 329(b) of the Constitution, arguing that the High Court erred in dismissing the petition based on non-compliance. The Supreme Court found no merit in this argument, stating that Article 329(b) grants the legislature authority to establish the manner in which election petitions are presented, including the requirement for a security deposit. The court referenced the precedent set in Charan Lal Sahu v. Nand Kishore Bhatt, confirming that the High Court must reject petitions lacking the required security deposit. The court dismissed Rein's appeal, stating that his claim of being unable to pay the deposit due to being bugled was irrelevant and unconvincing. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment and dismissed the appeal without costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Election Petition Compliance - Sections 86, 117 Representation of the People Act, 1951 - The court held that the provisions requiring a security deposit for election petitions are within the authority of Parliament under Article 329(b) of the Constitution. The High Court was correct in dismissing the election petition for non-compliance with section 117, as established by precedent. (Paras 143-144).
Issue of Consideration
Whether sections 86 and 117 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 are ultra vires Article 329(b) of the Constitution and the consequences of non-compliance with section 117.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision to reject the election petition for lack of compliance with the security deposit requirement under section 117 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Law Points
- Election petition
- security deposit
- ultra vires
- Article 329(b)
- Representation of the People Act
- 1951
- non-compliance consequences
