Incomplete Copy Not A "True Copy" U/s 81(3) RPA: Orissa HC Dismisses Election Petition For Omitting To Serve "Facebook Selfie With EVM" Picture Copy
Failure to furnish selfie with EVM and VVPAT unit, relied upon to allege corrupt practice attracts mandatory dismissal under Section 86(1) RPA
The Orissa High Court has dismissed an election petition alleging corrupt practices, holding that the petitioner failed to serve a “true copy” of the petition on the returned candidate as required under Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
The Court found that the copy served was incomplete, as it did not include the alleged Facebook selfie with the EVM and VVPAT, which formed a material part of the pleadings, and was therefore not in compliance with the statutory mandate.
Such non-compliance, the Court observed, is fatal in view of Section 86(1) of the Act, which mandates dismissal of an election petition that does not comply with Sections 81, 82, or 117 of the Act.
Justice Sashikanta Mishra observed, “…this Court finds that the allegation of corrupt practice in the Election Petition lacks substance, inasmuch as the Facebook photographs in question despite forming an integral part of the pleading, have not been included in the election petition while serving a copy of it along with the copy of the Election Petition upon the Respondent. Non-furnishing of the photographs amounts to noncompliance with Section 81(3) of the Act, which is fatal as per Section 86(1). It also goes without saying that, once paragraphs 8 and 10(H) are found to lack material facts, the question relating to the absence of the affidavit in Form-25 becomes redundant”.
“…this Court holds that the Election Petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the copy served upon the Respondent was incomplete and did not constitute a “true copy” within the meaning of Section 81(3) of the Act. In light of this finding, it is unnecessary to examine the other grounds raised in the Election Petition”, the bench further observed.
Advocate K.K Mohapatra appeared for the petitioner and Advocate M.R. Mohapatra appeared for the respondent.
As per the facts in the matter, the election petition alleged that one Ajaya Kumar Pradhan, described as a close associate of the returned candidate and a government official deployed on election duty in the 12–Rourkela Assembly Constituency, committed corrupt practices within the meaning of Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
However, while serving a copy of the election petition upon the respondent, the petitioner did not include the said photographs, despite having referred to them in the pleadings.
The High Court held that when documents form an integral part of the pleadings and are relied upon to establish material facts, they must necessarily be furnished along with the copy served upon the respondent. Failure to do so renders the copy incomplete and not a “true copy” within the meaning of Section 81(3).
The petitioner had also raised other grounds challenging the election, including deficiencies in pleadings and procedural non-compliance. However, the High Court held that once it found non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of serving a “true copy” under Section 81(3), attracting dismissal under Section 86(1), it was unnecessary to examine the remaining grounds on merits.
The Court further observed that paragraphs 8 and 10(H) of the petition lacked material facts necessary to sustain the allegation of corrupt practice. In that view of the matter, the issue relating to absence of an affidavit in Form 25 also became redundant.
The High Court thus dismissed the election petition at the threshold under Section 86(1), without examining the remaining grounds.
Cause Title: Radheshyam Yadav v. Sarada Prasad Nayak I.A. No. 26 of 2025 (ARISING OUT OF ELPET No.14 of 2024)
Appearances:
Petitioner: K.K Mohapatra, S.R. Swain, D. Nayak, M. Deo, B. Das, S. Das, & U.K. Mohapatra, Advocates.
Respondent: M/s. U K Samal, M.R. Mohapatra, S.P. Patra, N. Samal & A.B. Tarini, Advocates.