Representation Of Peoples Act Complete Code In Itseld, Limitation Act Does Not Apply: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that an election petition filed under Section 86(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 outside the period of limitation prescribed under Section 81 of the Act is not maintainable.

Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh held that the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is a complete and self-contained code which renders the Limitation Act inapplicable per se.

Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 provides 45 days period from the date of election of the returned candidate and if the dates for elections are different, then the later date, for filing of election petition.

Section 86 of the Act makes it mandatory for the High Courts to dismiss election petitions which do not comply with Sections 81, 82 and 117 of the Act.

Section 17 of the Limitation Act provides that where period of limitation for any suit has been described under the Limitation Act then period of limitation will start from the day till which fraud, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered.

Petitioners filed the election petition against successfully elected candidate, Respondent no. 1, alleging that she had played fraud on constituency members by concealing her original caste, which was 'Bhadauria Thakur'. It was alleged that Respondent no. 1 had contested the election as a member of the Scheduled Caste 'Kori' as per her caste certificate. The petition was filed with a delay of 655 days.

Amicus, Advocate Niami Das submitted before the Court that since the proceedings have arisen out of a particular statute, adjudication cannot go beyond the prescription of the statute. He submitted that the period for filing election petition is “rigid” and cannot be condoned. It was further submitted that the petitioners had not filed any application for delay condonation.

The Court relied on K. Venkereswara Rao and another v. Bekkam Narsimha Reddi and others, wherein the Supreme Court observed that due to the Representation of the People Act being a complete and self-contained code, the Limitation Act shall not apply to the same. It was held that despite various amendments to the Act of 1951, Section 86(1) had been retained. The question of corrupt practices having been resorted to in previous elections in the face of Section 86(1) was ultimately for the legislature to decide.

Further, the Court relied on Hukumdev Narayan Yadav v. Lalit Narain Misra where the Supreme Court held Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act will not apply to proceedings under the Act of 1951.

Accordingly, the Court held that extension of limitation provided in Section 17 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to proceedings under the Act of 1951.

On merits of the election petition, the court held that there were no pleadings to showthat fraud had been committed, even on a prima facie basis. The petitioners did not show as to how the alleged fraud could not have been discovered by them earlier.

The Court relied on Pallav Sheth Vs. Custodian and others where the Supreme Court held that “the limitation may not begin to run till fraud was discovered, despite “reasonable diligence” observed by the litigant.”

Accordingly, the election petition was dismissed.

Case Title: Jay Prakash And Another v. Anjula Singh Mahaur And Another [ELECTION PETITION No. - 1 of 2024]

Click Here To Read/Download Order