Introduction:

In the matter of Pankajkumar Bachubhai Velani (Jain) vs. Kiritkumar Chimanlal Patel and Others, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh, upheld the Gujarat High Court’s decision, emphasising the necessity for strict adherence to Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. This section mandates that an election petition must be presented within 45 days from the date of the election result. The case stemmed from the 2022 Gujarat Assembly elections, where the petitioners filed an election petition on January 18, 2023, challenging the election results declared on December 8, 2022. The petition contained several defects and was registered only on February 17, 2023, well beyond the stipulated 45-day period, which ended on January 23, 2023.

Arguments:

The petitioners argued that the term “presentation” in Section 81 should be interpreted as the act of filing the petition, regardless of defects, and that the High Court Rules allow for the rectification of such defects post-filing. They contended that the Registrar should have placed the matter before a judge to decide on granting time for defect removal. Additionally, they highlighted the returned candidate’s alleged criminal antecedents, including 19 FIRS, which were purportedly concealed.

The respondents countered that the petition was filed beyond the limitation period and contained significant defects, making it non-compliant with Section 81. They asserted that allowing such a petition would undermine the legislative intent of ensuring the timely resolution of election disputes.

Judgement:

The Supreme Court concurred with the High Court’s view, stating that mere presentation of a defective election petition does not satisfy the requirements of Section 81. The Court emphasised that permitting the rectification of substantial defects beyond the limitation period could lead to uncertainty and potentially defeat the purpose of the strict timeline established by the Act. The Court observed that accepting such petitions would allow for the introduction of an entirely new version of the petition after the deadline, which is not permissible.

The Court further noted that while the High Court’s interpretation was plausible and reasonable, it refrained from making a definitive ruling on the broader question of law, leaving it open for future consideration. The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, thereby affirming the High Court’s decision to reject the election petition as time-barred.