Use Of Lord Ayyappa's Pictures In Voting Slips | Supreme Court Upholds Kerala HC Finding That Petition Challenging K Babu's Election Is Triable
The Supreme Court (on February 12) held the election petition filed by CPI(M) leader M Swaraj challenging K Babu, Congress MLA elections from Thrippunithura constituency in the 2021 assembly elections as triable under the Representation of People Act, 1951.“...once the High Court opined that a triable issue under Section 123(3) of the Act of 1951(Representation of the People Act) is made...
The Supreme Court (on February 12) held the election petition filed by CPI(M) leader M Swaraj challenging K Babu, Congress MLA elections from Thrippunithura constituency in the 2021 assembly elections as triable under the Representation of People Act, 1951.
“...once the High Court opined that a triable issue under Section 123(3) of the Act of 1951(Representation of the People Act) is made out, we find no grounds to interfere therewith.,” Justices Aniruddha Bose and PV Sanjay Kumar.
Swaraj, who lost to Babu in the 2021 assembly polls, approached the High Court, seeking to declare the election of Babu null and void. The allegation against Babu is that he used corrupt practices that materially affected the result of the election by appealing to Hindu voters based on religion.
Opposing this, Babu had filed a plea before the High Court, raising certain preliminary objections. However, the High Court decided to proceed with the trial of the election's main petition against Babu. Against this, Babu had approached the Top Court.
At the outset, the Division Bench took note of the High Court's findings regarding the slips distributed by the appellant and his election agents. The High Court had said that the same depicted a picture of Lord Ayyappa and voiced an appeal to vote for the appellant.
It was also observed that the alleged statements made by the appellant did not ipso facto amount to a corrupt practice. However, the allegation of using religious symbols to gain an advantage in the election would amount to corrupt practice under the Act.
“Thereupon, the learned Judge opined, prima facie, that use of the picture of Lord Ayyappa in the slips distributed by and on behalf of the appellant constitutes a corrupt practice under Section 123(3) of the Act of 1951 and that the election petition, with respect to this aspect, was liable to be tried.,” the Top Court explained.
Preliminary Objections Raised
Additionally, it may be noted that one of the preliminary objections was that a sufficient number of authenticated copies, as required under Rule 212 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971, were not filed. Further, it was averred that the copies of the documents served on the respondents were not true copies and had not been attested as true copies.
In this context, it is imperative to note that Section 81(3) of the Act states: “(3) Every election petition shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned in the petition and every such copy shall be attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition….”
Taking a cue from this, the Top Court observed that the appellant Babu has only argued for the non-compliance of Rule 212. After perusing the same rule, the Court observed that as per the rule, only three authenticated copies of the application are to be filed. These three copies were for the use of the Court.
“It is obvious from a plain reading of the aforestated Rule that the three authenticated copies are for the use of the Court only. Further, copies of petitions to be furnished under this Rule are clearly in addition to what is required to be filed under Section 81(3) of the Act of 1951.”
The argument that the requirements of Rule 212 of the Rules of 1971 must be imported into and combined with those under Section 81(3) of the Act did not find favor with the Court. In this regard, the Court observed that when the law clearly states its compliance, it should not be interpreted otherwise by reading something additional into that provision.
“When the statutory provision unequivocally stipulates as to what is required to be done to comply with the mandate thereof, it is not permissible in law to read something more into that provision. Rule 212 of the Rules of 1971 introduces additional requirements prescribed by the High Court and the same cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be read into and be made part and parcel of Section 81(3) of the Act of 1951.”
Concerning the objection about furnishing true copies, it was observed that the appellant had made a bald statement without elaborating it.
“In his grounds in the present case, the appellant stated that copies of the documents served on the respondents in the election petition were not true copies and had not been attested as such. However, a precise averment was not made by the appellant even before us that the copy of the petition supplied to him was not attested by the first respondent under his own signature to be a true copy of the election petition. Significantly, the copy of the petition furnished to him was neither produced before the High Court nor before us to substantiate this plea.,” the Court explained.
Thus, finding no merit in the objection raised by the appellant, the Court dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: K. Babu V. M. Swaraj, SLP (C) No. 15320/2023
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 111
Click here to read/ download the judgment