The Supreme Court recently refused to interfere with the Gujarat High Court’s view on the Representation of the People Act (RP Act). The Court ruled that presenting a defective election petition without correcting its flaws within the 45-day limitation period does not fulfill the requirements of Section 81 of the RP Act, 1951.
The case revolved around the 2022 Gujarat Assembly elections. The Gujarat High Court had earlier ruled that merely presenting a petition filled with defects would not satisfy the "presentation" criteria under Section 81. The petitioners had failed to remove the defects within the stipulated time, leading to the rejection of their petition by the High Court.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Dismisses Petitions Against 1982 J&K Return Law Due to Non-Enforcement and Repeal in 2019
In a bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh, the Supreme Court noted that the High Court’s view was plausible and reasonable. The Court stated:
“The High Court has taken the view that mere presentation of an election petition which is full of defects will not be sufficient compliance of 'presentation' of petitions in terms of Section 81 of the 1951 Act... We find that the view taken by the High Court is a plausible and reasonable view.”
The Court also emphasized that any contrary view might have serious implications for the construction and enforcement of election law. It explained that allowing defects to be cured after the limitation period could undermine the strict 45-day timeline prescribed in the law. The Court further highlighted the importance of certainty in election outcomes, stating that allowing indefinite delays would jeopardize the electoral process.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Rachna Srivastava, representing the petitioner, argued that the law requires the presentation of the petition within 45 days, not its registration. She contended that the failure to remove defects within the given timeframe should not result in a rejection. However, the Court was not persuaded by this argument, with Justice Kant responding sharply:
“If your [petitioners'] argument is accepted that a petition with any kind of defect, you just present before the limitation date, where it will be treated as presentation...it will be a very, very dangerous proposition.”
Read Also:- Supreme Court Makes Its Permission Mandatory for Tree Cutting Within 5 Km of Taj Mahal
The Court also noted that the election petition in question was presented well after the 45-day period. The result was declared on December 8, 2022, and the petition was filed on January 18, 2023. Despite being given an opportunity to address objections, the petition was not registered until February 17, 2023, well beyond the 45-day deadline.
The case brought before the High Court also involved interpreting the term “presentation” in the RP Act. The High Court ruled that the election petition was barred by the limitation, and thus, could not be entertained. It emphasized that there is no provision allowing the Registrar or any authorized officer to permit corrections beyond the 45-day period.
As a result, the High Court rejected the petition and ruled that the election petition was barred by limitation. This decision was subsequently challenged before the Supreme Court, which upheld the High Court’s judgment.
Case Title: Pankajkumar Bachubhai Velani (Jain) vs Kiritkumar Chimanlal Patel and Others, SLP(C) No. 11279-11280/2025.
