RP Act | Election Petition Must Be Presented Petitioner Himself & Not Counsel : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (October 7) has held that an election petition filed under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RP Act) must be presented by the election petitioner himself, and that non-compliance with this mandatory requirement renders the petition liable to be dismissed.

A Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar upheld the Madras High Court's dismissal of an election petition challenging the election of DMK MLA S. Regupathy from the Thirumayam Assembly Constituency in the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly elections, after noting that the Election Petition was not filed by the election petitioner, but by his counsel.

“…an election petition is a serious proceeding which may result in the vitiation of an electoral process and that the procedure prescribed by an election statute must, therefore, be strictly followed. The requirement that the petition be presented “by” the petitioner enables the High Court, at the stage of presentation itself, to undertake a preliminary verification so as to ensure that the proceeding is not frivolous or vexatious.”, the Court observed, relying on its 2009 judgment of G.V. Sreerama Reddy and Another v. Returning Officer and Others.

The petitioner, V. Pon. Paneerselvam, who was a candidate on the Thirumayam seat, had challenged the election on allegations including corrupt practice of undue influence arising from alleged suppression and false declaration of his spouse's assets and income in the statutory Form 26 affidavit.

The Madras High Court dismissed the election petition, after finding that it had been presented by the petitioner's counsel rather than by the petitioner personally. The petitioner approached the Supreme Court against the dismissal.

Refusing to interfere with the impugned findings, the judgment authored by Justice Mishra examined Sections 81 and 86 of the RP Act, which respectively prescribe the requirements for presentation of an election petition and the consequence of non-compliance.

Relying on its earlier decision in G.V. Sreerama Reddy v. Returning Officer, the Court noted that Section 81(1) contains five specific requirements: the petitioner must be a candidate or elector; the petition must be presented “by” the petitioner; it must be based on specified statutory grounds; it must be presented before the High Court; and it must be filed within the prescribed 45-day period.

The Court stressed that these requirements are not merely procedural.

“The significance attached to these requisites is further borne out by Section 86(1) of the RP Act, 1951, which mandates that the High Court shall dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of Section 81 of the Act. Thus, the requirement of presentation under Section 81 cannot be viewed as a mere procedural formality divorced from the statutory scheme, as its compliance bears direct nexus with the maintainability of the election petition and a defect, if any, shall not be curable.”, the Court observed.

The Court also relied on the legislative history of Section 81, where originally, Section 81(2) expressly permitted an election petition to be presented either by the petitioner or by a person authorised in writing by the petitioner, besides permitting presentation through registered post.

However, that provision was omitted by the Representation of the People (Amendment) Act, 1966, which contains no recognition of presentation through an authorised person.

“While the earlier Section 81(2) expressly recognised presentation through a person authorised in writing by the election petitioner and also by registered post, no such modes of presentation find recognition in the provision as it now stands.”, the Court said.

The Court also distinguished its earlier decision of Sheo Sadan Singh v. Mohan Lal Gautam (1969), where presentation by an advocate's clerk was treated as substantial compliance because the petitioner was himself present alongside the clerk at the time of presentation.

The present petitioner, however, did not claim that he was present along with his counsel when the election petition was presented.

Accordingly, the Court held that the mandatory requirement under Section 81 had not been satisfied.

As a result, the petition was dismissed.

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pranav Sachdeva, AOR Mr. P Rohit Ram, Adv. Mr. Sanyam Jain, Adv. Ms. Khushboo Singhal, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : None