Case Note & Summary
This appeal by special leave arose from a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which had allowed a writ petition filed by the returned candidate and directed dismissal of an election petition. The dispute concerned compliance with Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, regarding attestation of copies of an election petition. At the general elections held in February 1962 for the Phirangipuram Legislative Assembly constituency in Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh, the third respondent K. Brahmananda Reddy was declared elected. The appellant, a voter in that constituency, filed an election petition before the Election Commission on April 11, 1962, challenging the election on grounds including corrupt practices and irregularities such as recording votes of dead voters and double voting. The petition was accompanied by the requisite number of copies and a treasury receipt for security under Section 117. The copies were carbon copies of the type-script and each bore the original signature of the petitioner on the contents and verification, but they did not contain the words 'true copy' above the signature. The returned candidate filed a written statement and later a further statement raising preliminary objections, including non-compliance with Section 81(3) because the copies were not attested as true copies. The Election Tribunal, by order dated November 7, 1962, rejected all preliminary objections. The returned candidate then filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court. The High Court disallowed other technical objections but held that the petition did not comply with Section 81(3) because the copies lacked the attestation 'true copy', and directed dismissal of the election petition. The appellant obtained special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined the relevant provisions, particularly Sections 80, 81(3), and 90(3) of the Act, and Article 329(b) of the Constitution. The Court noted that if there was total or complete non-compliance with Section 81(3), the election petition might not be an election petition presented in accordance with Part VI under Section 80. However, interpreting the expression 'copy', the Court held that it meant not an exact copy but only one so true that nobody by any possibility misunderstands it not being the same as the original. It distinguished English cases Noseworthy v. Overseers Buckland etc. and Spice v. Bacon. On the facts, the copies were carbon copies and true copies; the signatures on the copies were not merely intended to be copies of the signatures on the original because a signature in original was not needed on the copy; writing or copying out the name of the signatory would suffice. Therefore, the absence of the words 'true copy' did not detract from the copy being a true copy, and substantial compliance with Section 81(3) was established. The Court followed its earlier decisions in Murarka v. Roop Singh and Kamaraj Nadar v. Kunjer Thevar. It left open the wider question whether Section 81(3) or part thereof is mandatory or directory. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's order was set aside, and the election petition was restored for trial on merits.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Attestation of Copies - Substantial Compliance - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Section 81(3) - The election petition copies were carbon copies of the type-script, bore original signatures of the petitioner on contents and verification, but lacked the words 'true copy' above the signature. The Court held that this amounted to substantial compliance with Section 81(3) because the copies were true copies and the signature requirement was satisfied. Held that the election petition was not liable to be dismissed under Section 90(3) for non-compliance. (Paras Not mentioned) B) Interpretation - Meaning of 'Copy' - True Copy Not Exact Copy - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Section 81(3) - The expression 'copy' meant not an exact copy but only one so true that nobody by any possibility misunderstands it not being the same as the original. The Court distinguished Noseworthy v. Overseers Buckland etc. and Spice v. Bacon. Held that the copies in the present case satisfied this standard. (Paras Not mentioned) C) Election Law - Signature on Copies - Original Signature Not Required on Copy - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Section 81(3) - Signatures on the copies could not be considered merely intended to be a copy of those on the original because a signature in original was not needed on the copy; writing or copying out the name of the signatory would suffice. Therefore absence of writing indicating signature in original did not detract from the copy being a true copy. Held that this further supported substantial compliance. (Paras Not mentioned) D) Procedural Law - Mandatory vs Directory Provisions - Section 81(3) Not Decided as Mandatory - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Sections 80, 81(3) - The Court noted that total or complete non-compliance with Section 81(3) might render the petition not presented in accordance with Part VI under Section 80, but left open whether Section 81(3) or part thereof is mandatory or directory. Held that on the facts, substantial compliance was sufficient and the appeal was allowed. (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the absence of attestation on copies of election petition that they are true copies amounts to non-compliance with Section 81(3) of Representation of the People Act, 1951, warranting dismissal of petition; whether there has been substantial compliance where copies are true copies and bear petitioner's signature but lack the words 'true copy'
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; Election petition restored for trial on merits. Supreme Court held that there was substantial compliance with Section 81(3) as copies were true copies and bore petitioner's signature, and absence of specific attestation did not render them non-compliant.
Law Points
- Compliance with Section 81(3) of Representation of the People Act
- 1951 requires copies to be 'true copies' not necessarily exact copies
- 'copy' means a copy so true that nobody by any possibility misunderstands it as not being the same as original
- attestation by petitioner under own signature to be a true copy is requirement
- but absence of words 'true copy' may not be fatal if copy is otherwise true and bears petitioner's signature
- substantial compliance suffices
- total non-compliance may render petition not presented in accordance with Part VI
- election petition must be presented in accordance with Part VI per Section 80
- Article 329(b) of Constitution bars challenge except by election petition presented in manner provided by law
