Adherence To Personal Presentation Rule Is Mandatory For Election Petitions U/S 81(1) Representation Of People Act: Meghalaya High Court
The records indicated that the filing was instead handled by the conducting advocate, constituting a non-curable irregularity.
The Meghalaya High Court has reiterated that the presentation of an election petition must be done personally by the candidate or an elector to the authorised officer, as mandated under Section 81(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The Court emphasised that any failure to strictly adhere to this procedural requirement is fatal to the maintainability of the petition, leading to its dismissal at the threshold without delving into the merits of the case.
The Court noted that the "Stamp Reporter" is the authorised officer for such filings under the adopted Gauhati High Court Rules. In the present matter, the Court found that the petitioner failed to prove personal presentation before the Stamp Reporter, and the records indicated that the filing was instead handled by the conducting advocate, which constitutes a non-curable irregularity.
A Single Judge Bench comprising Justice H.S. Thangkhiew observed, “…the law as per Section 81(1) being clear that an election petition is to be presented by any candidate or elector relating to election personally to the authorized officer of the High Court, in this case the Stamp Reporter, the failure to adhere to such course is contrary to that provision and the Rules framed by the High Court under Chapter VII-A of the Gauhati High Court Rules. As such, on the first issue framed itself, the election petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of improper presentation”.
Senior Advocate Mr. N. Jotendra Singh appeared for the petitioner and Advocate A.S. Pandey appeared for the respondent.
The brief facts of the case involve an election petition filed by Shri Titosstar Well Chyne, a candidate in the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly elections, challenging the election results of the Pynursla constituency.
The Respondent No. 1, Shri Gavin Miguel Mylliem, contested the petition’s maintainability through a miscellaneous application, alleging that the petition was not presented in accordance with the statutory requirements of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Pertinently, the Court had initially disposed of the Respondent's challenge under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on October 31, 2023, by directing that the question of personal presentation be treated as a preliminary issue. Evidence was subsequently recorded, featuring testimonies from the petitioner, his witnesses, the Stamp Reporter, and the Notary Public to ascertain the facts surrounding the filing on April 12, 2023.
The Court considered the stark inconsistencies in the testimonies provided by the Petitioner’s witnesses. The Petitioner (PW-1) claimed to have presented the petition on April 12, 2023, but official records showed the notarization occurred on April 11, 2023, and the filing was endorsed by the advocate.
Crucially, the Stamp Reporter (DW-1) explicitly deposed that the petition was never presented to her personally by the petitioner. The Court observed that the law requires strict compliance because an election challenge is a "serious matter".
“…It is to be noted therefore, that prevailing election law requires presentation must be ‘by’ the petitioner himself as the challenge to election is a serious matter and as such any procedure provided must be strictly adhered to…”, the Bench observed.
“Though the election petitioner had been at pains to advance the argument that the violations can be overlooked by employing the doctrine of substantial compliance, the same in the considered of this Court, would be applicable only in cases of compliance of Section 81(3) which stipulates that every election petition must be accompanied by a specified number of copies, which has also been raised by the respondent herein and for defects of the type under Section 83 of the RP Act, which would be curable under Order 6 Rules 14 & 15 of the CPC”, it noted further.
Accordingly, the Court held that the election petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of improper presentation as per Section 81(1) of the Act. Consequently, the Court dismissed the election petition without entering into the merits of the allegations.
However, the Court before parting with the judgment, observed, “…As a footnote, this Court is constrained to observe that in the manner of filing of election petition, due care should be exercised, which should not result in the same being dismissed on the ground of a technicality, as has been occasioned in the present case, without the merits of the election petition being entered into”.
Cause Title: Titosstar Well Chyne v. Shri Gavin Miguel Mylliem & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026:MLHC:297]
Appearances:
Petitioner: N. Jotendra Singh, Senior Advocate, A. Kharshiing, Advocate.
Respondents: A.S. Pandey with A.M. Pala and K.C.H. Nongrum, Advocates.