Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Validity of Amended Election Petition
Court dismisses application to reject amended election petition, maintaining compliance with Representation of the People Act, 1951
In a significant judgment delivered on September 18, 2025, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, presided by Justice Anoop Chitkara, dismissed the application filed by the returned candidate, Devender Chattar Bhuj Attri, seeking the rejection of an amended election petition. The case, Brijendra Singh v. Devender Chattar Bhuj Attri, revolved around the compliance with statutory requirements under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
The petitioner, Brijendra Singh, had filed an amended election petition which restricted, reduced, and deleted certain prayers without expanding the scope of the original petition. The respondent, Devender Chattar Bhuj Attri, challenged the amended petition on grounds of non-compliance with Sections 81, 83, and 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, arguing that the amended petition was not personally presented by the petitioner and lacked proper attestation and verification.
The High Court thoroughly analyzed the arguments presented by both parties. It observed that the amendment did not expand the scope of the petition but merely confined the prayers to a limited issue of improper rejection of 215 postal votes, thus not violating the statutory provisions. Justice Chitkara emphasized that amendments which do not introduce new grounds but rather reduce the scope do not require personal presentation by the petitioner, and hence do not contravene Section 81(1) of the Act.
The Court further noted that the requirement under Section 81(3) to supply copies to non-contesting respondents proceeded ex-parte was not mandatory. The filing of copies is required only for contesting respondents, and since the amendment did not add new prayers, the statutory requirement was deemed fulfilled.
Additionally, the Court held that the election petition disclosed a proper cause of action and could not be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, without being put on trial. The Court dismissed the application CM No. 36-E, allowing the amended petition to proceed.
This judgment underscores the importance of procedural compliance in election petitions and clarifies the interpretation of statutory provisions concerning amendments that limit the scope of original petitions.
Bottom Line:
Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Amended election petition restricting and reducing prayers does not require personal presentation by the petitioner or attestation of copies for ex-parte respondents. There is no violation of Sections 81, 83, or 86 of the Act when amendments do not expand the scope of the petition.
Statutory provision(s): Representation of the People Act, 1951 Sections 81, 83, 86, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order 7 Rule 11
Brijendra Singh v. Devender Chattar Bhuj Attri, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2780964
