RP Act 1951 | High Court Has No Power To Extend Limitation Period Or Condone Delay In Filing Of Election Petition: Allahabad HC
Sparsh Upadhyay
2 Oct 2024 9:54 PM IST
The Allahabad High Court has observed that under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, it does not possess the power to extend the limitation period or condone delays in filing election petitions.
A bench of Justice Samit Gopal also said that the 1951 Act is a code in itself and thus, the Limitation Act, 1963 provisions do not apply to election petitions, and the filing/presentation of the election petition is strictly governed by Section 81 of the Act, 1951.
The Court added that the merits of an election petition cannot be seen and considered unless and until it is maintainable and not barred by limitation.
For context, Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 provides that an election petition may be presented to the High Court within 45 days from, but not earlier than, the date of election of the returned candidate or, if there is more than one returned candidate at the election and the dates of their election are different, the later of those two dates.
Section 86 of the Act requires the High Courts to dismiss election petitions that do not comply with Sections 81, 82, and 117 of the Act.
The Court was dealing with an Election Petition filed by petitioner (Prahlad Singh) challenging the election of returned candidate Yogesh Chowdhary (the respondent) as a Member of the Legislative Council.
It was the petitioner's primary case that the respondent, while disclosing and explaining his criminal antecedents in Format C-2, disclosed 06 cases to be pending against him but did not disclose 1 other criminal case for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 504, and 506 IPC.
The election petition was presented on July 30, 2024, before the Registrar General of the High Court beyond 92 days as prescribed in Section 81 of the 1951 Act.
At the outset, the Court observed that no provision in the 1951 Act gives powers for condonation of delay, if any, and the extension of the limitation period.
The Court also referred to the Apex Court's ruling in the case of Hukumdev Narayan Yadav v. Lalit Narain Misra, where the Top Court had held that Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act will not apply to proceedings under the 1951 Act.
Further, the Court noted that the HC, while hearing an election petition, operates as an Authority under Article 329 (b) of the Constitution of India, whose jurisdiction is circumscribed by the statutory provisions of the Act, 1951.
In this regard, the Single Judge relied upon the Apex Court's ruling in Thampanoor Ravi vs. Charupara Ravi : (1999) 8 SCC 74, which held that a High Court hearing an election petition does not function as a Constitutional Court per se nor has extraordinary constitutional or inherent powers.
Given this, holding that until an election petition is maintainable and is not barred by limitation, the merits of the matter cannot be seen and considered, the Court dismissed the election petition for being barred by Section 81 read with Section 86 of the Act, 1951.
Case title - Prahlad Singh vs. Yogesh Chaudhary [- ELECTION PETITION No. - 11 of 2024]
Case citation:
