Case Note & Summary
The case arose out of an election petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The appellant, Thepfulo Nakhro Angami, had been found by the Assam and Nagaland High Court in Election Petition No. 2 of 1969 to have committed certain corrupt practices under Section 123(6) read with Section 77 of the Act, while being absolved of other charges. The High Court's judgment dated March 26, 1970 was assailed by the appellant in the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1125 of 1970 under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, as amended in 1966. The respondent, Shrimati Ravalu alias Reno M. Shaiza, sought to support the High Court's judgment even on grounds which had been decided against him, without filing a substantive appeal. On September 14, 1970, a two-judge bench of the Court referred the important procedural question to a larger bench of five judges because no case interpreting Section 116A after the 1966 amendment had been brought to its notice. The larger bench, by its order dated January 14, 1971, ruled that the respondent was entitled to support the High Court judgment without preferring an appeal, and delivered its reasons on January 21, 1971. The core legal issue was whether a respondent in an appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, as amended in 1966, could urge grounds negatived by the High Court to support the judgment in his favour without filing a cross-appeal. The appellant's counsel argued that the charge under Section 123(6) read with Section 77 was not made out and sought to distinguish the earlier decision in Ramanbhai Ashabhai Patel v. Debhi Ajitkumar Fulsinji, (1965) 1 SCR 712, on two grounds: first, that the earlier case was decided in a special leave appeal where the Supreme Court's jurisdiction was wider; second, that the scope of an appeal under Section 116A before its 1966 amendment was different. The respondent contended that he was entitled to submit that charges of which the appellant had been absolved were proved and should be permitted to raise those questions. The Supreme Court rejected both distinctions. It held that the decision in Ramanbhai Ashabhai Patel did not rest either on the special leave jurisdiction or on the unamended Section 116A. Instead, it laid down a general principle that the Supreme Court has power to decide all points arising from the judgment appealed against, and even in the absence of an express provision analogous to Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Court can devise appropriate procedure by drawing upon suitable provisions of the general law. The Court quoted from that decision, including the observation that considerations of justice require permitting a party in whose favour the judgment has been given to support that judgment on grounds negatived in it, since normally such a party would not be granted special leave to appeal. Following this precedent, the Court concluded that the respondent was entitled to support the High Court judgment on the absolved charges without filing a substantive appeal. The appeal was directed to be listed before the Bench presided over by Mitter J. for further hearing on merits.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Appeals under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Respondent's Right to Support Judgment Without Cross-Appeal - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Section 116A; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XLI Rule 22 - In an election petition under Section 123(6) read with Section 77 of the Representation of the People Act, the High Court decided against the appellant while absolving him of certain charges; the respondent contended he could support the High Court judgment on the absolved grounds without filing a substantive appeal. The Supreme Court followed Ramanbhai Ashabhai Patel v. Debhi Ajitkumar Fulsinji, (1965) 1 SCR 712, and held that it has power to decide all points arising from the judgment appealed against and may draw upon Order XLI Rule 22 CPC to devise appropriate procedure; the decision did not rest on special leave jurisdiction or the pre-1966 text of Section 116A. Held: the respondent is entitled to support the judgment of the High Court without preferring an appeal against an order made against him if the ultimate decision in the petition is in his favour (Paras 1-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a respondent in an appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (as amended in 1966) is entitled to support the High Court's judgment by raising questions that were decided in favour of the appellant without filing a substantive appeal
Final Decision
The respondent's contention was accepted. The Supreme Court held that under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 as amended in 1966, the respondent is entitled to support the judgment of the High Court without preferring an appeal against an order made against him if the ultimate decision in the petition is in his favour. The Court followed Ramanbhai Ashabhai Patel v. Debhi Ajitkumar Fulsinji & Ors., [1965] 1 S.C.R. 712, and ruled that even in the absence of an express provision like Order XLI Rule 22 CPC, the Court can devise appropriate procedure and draw upon CPC provisions. The appeal was directed to be posted before the Bench presided over by Mitter J. for further hearing.
Law Points
- Under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act
- 1951 as amended in 1966
- a respondent in the Supreme Court can support the judgment of the High Court on grounds decided against him without filing a substantive appeal
- the Supreme Court has power to decide all points arising from the judgment appealed against
- in the absence of express provisions
- the Court can draw upon Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure
- 1908 to devise appropriate procedure
- the decision in Ramanbhai Ashabhai Patel v. Debhi Ajitkumar Fulsinji applies to appeals under Section 116A as amended
