Holding

For Legislative Assembly elections the limitation period under Section 81 begins on the date of election of the returned candidate, so the petitions filed on 25 June 2004 were barred by limitation.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined three election petitions filed in the High Court of Sikkim challenging unopposed elections to the Sikkim Legislative Assembly where the returned candidates were declared elected on 26 April 2004. The petitioners argued that the 45‑day limitation under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 should be measured from the date the last candidate in the state was declared elected (17 May 2004). The respondents contended that the limitation starts from the date of election of each returned candidate, i.e., 26 April 2004, and thus the petitions filed on 25 June 2004 were time‑barred. The Court held that the first part of Section 81 applies to Legislative Assembly elections, while the second part, which allows the later of two dates, is confined to elections to Legislative Councils or the Rajya Sabha where multiple candidates may be elected at different times. Consequently, the limitation period began on 26 April 2004 and the petitions were barred. The appeals were dismissed with costs.

Issues considered

The appropriate starting point for the 45‑day limitation period under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 for unopposed Legislative Assembly elections
Whether the second part of Section 81, which refers to differing dates of election of multiple returned candidates, applies to Legislative Assembly elections

Legislation cited

Representation of the People Act, 1951s. 53, s. 66, s. 67, s. 67A, s. 73, s. 80, s. 80A, s. 81

Subjects

election petitionlimitation periodRepresentation of the People ActSection 81unopposed electionLegislative AssemblySikkim electionSupreme Court

Judgment

/
'·

A YOUARAJRAI
v.
CHANDER BAHADUR KARKI

DECEMBER 15, 2006

B [Y.K. SABHARWAL, CJI., C.K. THAKKERAND R.V. RAVEENDRAN, JJ.]

Election laws:

- Representation of People Act, 1951-s.8/--'-Election to the legislative
c Assembly for the State-limitation period for filing election petition-Held,
relevant date for calculation of limitation period is 'date of election of
returned candidate' and not the date on which last candidate was declared
elected at a general election.

The Election Commission of India issued a notification on March 16,
D 2004 for holding general election to the Legislative Assembly for the State
of Sikkim. Total constituencies were 32. The appeilants filed their nomination
papers on 23.4.2004. They were found defective and were rejected. As a result
on 26.4.2004, which was the last date for withdrawal of candidature, in all the
three above constituencies only one candidate was in the field. The Returning
E Officer, therefore, declared the first respondent (in all the matters) elected
(un-contested). In respect of other constituencies, however polling was held
on 10.5.2004 and after counting of votes, results were declared on 17.5.2004.

Appellants filed Election petition in High Court on 25.6.2004. An J
objection-was raised by the returned candidates as to maintainability of
F petitions on the ground of limitation. It was contended that in accordance
with the provi!;ions of Section 81 of the Representation of People Act, 1951
an election petition could be presented calling in question any election of a
successful candidate within a period of 45 days from the date of election of
the returned candidate; that the returned candidates were declared elected
(un-contested) on 26.4.2004, thus they are barred by limitation. High Court
G upheld the objection and dismissed the Election petition holding that they were
barred by limitation. Hence these appeals.

Dismissing the appeals, the Court

H 1184
' ...
YOUARAJ RAJ v. CHANDER BAHADUR KARKI 1185
HELD: 1.1. Section 81 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 lays A
down the period of limitation for filing an election petition. Admittedly, it is
in two parts. The first part provides that an election petition calling in question
any election could be filed by a candidate or an elector within 45 days from
the date of the election of the returned candidate. The second part of the section
covers those cases where there are more than one returned candidate at the
election and the dates of their elections are different. In such cases, the later B
of the two dates would be the starting point of limitation for the purpose of
filing an election petition. [1192-C-D)

1.2. The second part of Section 81 does not deal with election to
Legislative Assembly or to the House of People (Lok Sabha), but to Legislative C
Council of State or to Council of States (Rajya Sabha). That part speaks of
more than one returned candidate at the election which is an eventuality only
in the election of Legislative Council of State or Council of State where at a
single election by the same electorate more than one candidate could be
elected. The High Court was, therefore, right in holding that the relevant date
for calculation of the period of limitation was 'the date of election of the D
returned candidate' and an election petition ought to be filed within forty-five
days from such date. (1192-E-F)

V. V. Giri v. D. Suri Dora & Ors., [1960) 1 SCR 425 and P.R. Francis v.
A. V. Aryian, AIR (1968) Ker 252, referred to.
E
2.1. Upholding of submission that the limitation for filing an election
petition should be reckoned not with reference to the date on which the
candidate whose election is challenged was declared elected, but with reference
to the date on which the last candidate was declared elected at a general
election would not only make the provision cumbersome and contrary to the
provisions of the Act, particularly, against the scheme of amendments F
introduced in 1956 and 1961 but would make starting point oflimitation
uncertain, indefinite and fluctuating. Such construction would require
complete details of all returned candidates of Legislative Assembly ofa State.
Moreover, where the challenge is to an election of a Member of House of People
full particulars in different constituencies throughout the country must be G
before the Election Tribunal. The Tribunal also is bound to inquire into such
particulars with a view to ascertaining whether the election petition filed by
the petitioner is or is not within the period specified in Section 81 of the Act.
Again, in case of dispute or contest on the issue of limitation, the Election
Tribunal is required to call for and inspect records of all constituencies.
H
.. ~
1186 SUPREME COURT. REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R.

A Unless compelled, a Court of law would not interpret a provision in such a
way which would frustrate legislative intent and make the provision
unworkable and impracticable. (1195-H; 1196-A-DJ

2.2. When a defeated candidate or an elector has grievance against an
act of declaring a particular candidate successful at the election, his cause of
B action arises as soon as such declaration is made. He therefore, can challenge
that act. He is not concerned with other constituencies or candidates. He
cannot be allowed to join his cause of action with declaration of results in
other constituencies or returned candidates in those constituencies.
(1196-EJ
c Shri Chandra/cant Shukla v. Maharaja Marland Singh, (1973) 3 SCC
194, referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8250 of2004.

D From the final Judgment/Order dated 18.11.2004 of the High Court of
Sikkim at Gangtok in E.P. No.3/2004.

With

Civil Appeal Nos. 8253 and 8255 of2004.

E R.N. Mittal, V .A. Mohta, Puneet Mittal, Pawan Mittal, Sandeep Gupta
and Arvind Kumar Gupta for the Appellant.

A. Mariarputham, Aruna Mathur and Mini Nair (for M/s. Arputham,
Aruna & Co.) for the Respondents.

F The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
r-
C.K. THAKKER, J. Appeals admitted. t
All the above three appeals raise an interesting and important question
of law as to interpretation of Section 81 of the Representation of the People
G Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

In all these appeals, facts are more or less similar. The Election
Commission of India issued a notification on March 16, 2004 for holding
general election to the Legislative Assembly for the State of Sikkim. Total
constituencies were 32. A programme was published which provided various
H stages of election. April 23, 2004 was the last date for filing nomination
YOUARAJ RAI v. CHANDER BAHADUR KARKI [C.K. THAKKER, J.) 1187

papers, April 24, 2004 was fixed for scrutiny of nomination papers, April 26, A
2004 was the last date for withdrawal of candidatures, May IO, 2004 was the
date of poll, if necessary, and date of counting and declaration of results was
fixed as May 17, 2004. The appellants filled in their nomination papers from
12-Wak Assembly Constituency, 14-Melli Assembly Constituency and 13-
Damthang Assembly Constituency respectively on April 23, 2004. When
nomination papers were scrutinized on the next date, i.e. April 24, 2004, they B
were found to be defective and hence all their nomination papers were rejected.
The resultant effect was that on April 26, 2004 which was the last date for
withdrawal of candidature, in all the three above constituencies, only one
candidate was in the field. The Returning Officer, therefore, declared the first
respondent in all the matters elected (un-contested). In respect of other C
constituencies, however, polling was held on May IO, 2004 and after counting
of votes, results were declared on May 17, 2004.

All the three appellants filed Election Petitions in the High Court of
Sikkim (Election Tribunal) on June 25, 2004. Notices were issued to the
respondents-returned candidates and they appeared. A preliminary objection · D
was raised by the returned candidates as to maintainability of petitions on the
ground of limitation. It was contended that in accordance with the provisions
of Section 81 of the Act, an election petition could be presented calling in
question any election of a successful candidate within a period of forty-five
days from the cate of election of the returned candidate. Since the returned
candidates were declared elected (un-contested) on April 26, 2004, election E
petitions could be filed only within a period of forty-five days from that date,
i.e. April 26, 2004. Petitions were admittedly filed on June 25, 2004 and thus
they are barred by limitation. The case of the election-petitioners, on the
other hand, was that date Of poll was May 10, 2004· and date of publication
of results of election under Section 73 of the Act was May 17, 2004. For all F
material purposes, therefore, relevant date was May 17, 2004 and not April
26, 2004 and in view of that fact, election petitions were within limitation.

Considering the controversy between the parties and a preliminary
objection regarding maintainability of petitions on the ground of limitation,
the High Court raised a preliminary issue as under- G
"Whether the election petition is barred by the law of limitation as
prescribed under Section 81 of the Act?"

The High Court then heard the learned counsel for the parties, considered
H
1188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R.

A the relevant provisions of the Act and other laws, referred to the decisions
cited at the Bar and held that the relevant date of commencement of limitation
for the purpose of challenging the election of returned candidates (un-
contested) was April 26, 2004 and not May 17, 2004 as contended by the
election-petitioners. Election petitions were, therefore, barred by limitation.
The High Court, accordingly, dismissed all the petitions with costs.
B
Being aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court, all the appellants
have filed these appeals under Section l l 6A of the Act. Notice was issued
on January 6, 2005. The appeals were also ordered to be posted for hearing.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
c
The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the High Court
has committed an error of law in dismissing election petitions filed by the
appellants-election-petitioners on the ground of limitation. He submitted that
reading of the relevant provisions of the Act makes it abundantly clear that
D extended period of limitation is provided in Section 81 of the Act and petitions
filed by the appellants-petitioners were within the period of limitation. It was
also submitted that the present cases are governed by the second part of
Section 8 I of the Act and not the first part of the said provision and High
Court erroneously held that the period of limitation would start from declaration
of returned candidate on April 26, 2004. The counsel alternatively argued that
E even if two interpretations are possible, the one which would enable the
Election Tribunal (High Court) to consider and decide the case on merits
would be preferred to another interpretation which would non-suit the election-
petitioners holding the petitions to be barred by time. It was, therefore,
submitted that the order passed by the High Court deserves to be set aside
F by allowing these appeals and remitting all petitions to the High Court, to I

treat them within time and to decide them in accordance with law.

The learned counsel for the respondents-returned candidates, on the
other hand, supported the order passed by the High Court. He submitted that
the High Court was wholly justified in dismissing the petitions and in
G interpreting the relevant provisions of the Act and in particular, Section 81
thereof. According to him, the relevant date for filing an election petition
would be the date of declaration of returned candidate and -0nce such
declaration was made on April 26, 2004, the limitation began to run from that
date and the defeated candidates were required to institute election petitions ·
within forty-five days from that date. Admittedly, petitions were filed on June
H
.... YOUARAJ RAI v. CHANDER BAHADUR KARKI (C.K..THAKKER, J.] 1189

25, 2004 and hence, they were rightly held barred by limitation. It was also A
submitted that considering the relevant provisions of law, the amendments
made in the Act in 1956 and 1961, the reasoning and conclusion of the High
Court cannot be faulted with and the appeals deserve to be dismissed.

Our attention has been invited by the learned counsel for the parties
to the relevant provisions of the Act as also of other laws. Before we deal B
with the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, it would
be appropriate if we refer to the relevant provisions of the Act. The Preamble
of the Act declares that the Act has been enacted "to provide for the conduct
of elections of the Houses of Parliament and to the House or Houses of the
Legislature of each State, the qualifications and disqualifications for C
membership of those Houses, the corrupt practices and other offences at or
in connection with such elections and the decision of doubts and disputes
arising out of or in connection with such elections". Section 2 is a 'legislative
dictionary' and defines various terins. It, however, starts with a caveat and
declares that the definition in the said section would prevail "unless the
context otherwise requires". Clause (d) of sub-section (I) of Section 2 defines D
'election' as "election to fill a seat or seats in either House of Parliament or
in the House or either House of the Legislature of a State". Sub-section (2)
of Section 2 enacts that for the purposes of the Act, "a Parliamentary
constituency, an Assembly constituency, a Council constituency, a local
authorities' constituency, a graduates' constituency and a teachers' E
constituency shall be treated as a constituency of a different class". Part II
deals with qualifications and disqualifications of membership of Parliament
and of State Legislatures. Part III provides for issuance of notification for
~ . general elections. Section 15 deals with notification for general election to
a State Legislative Assembly. Part V relates to conduct of elections. ·Chapter
III thereof titled 'General procedure at elections' relates to cases where there F
is contest as also non-contest. Section 53 which is relevant reads thus:

53. Procedure in contested and uncontested elections.(1) If the number
of contesting candidates is more than the number of seats to be filled,
a poll shall be taken.
G
(2) If the number of such candidates is equal to the number of seats
to be filled, the returning officer shall forthwith declare all such
candidates to be duly elected to fill those seats.

(3) If the number of such candidates is less than the number of seats
to be filled, the returning officer shall forthwith declare all such H
1190 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006} SUPP. 10 S.C.R.

A candidates to be elected and the Election Commission shall by
notification in the Official Gazette call upon the constituency or
the elected members or the members of the State Legislative
Assembly or the members of the electoral college concerned, as
the case may be, to elect a person or persons to fill the remaining
seat or seats.
B
Provided that where the constituency or the elected members. or
the members of the State Legislative Assembly or the members of the
electoral college having already been called upon under this sub-
section, has or have failed to elect a person or the requisite number
of persons, as the case may be, to fill the vacancy or vacancies, the
c Election Commission shall not be bound to call again upon the
constituency, or such members to elect a person or persons until it
is satisfied that if called upon again, there will be no such failure on
the part of the constituency of such members.

Sections 54 and 63 which provided procedure at elections in
D constituencies which included reserved seats and method of voting at such
elections were subsequently repealed. We will deal with that aspect at an
appropriate stage.

Chapter IV of the said part relates to poll. Chapter V deals with
E 'Counting of votes'. Section 64 states that at every election where a poll is
taken, votes shall be counted by or under the .supervision and direction of,
the Returning Officer, and each contesting candidate, his election agent and
his counting agents, shall have a right to remain present at the time of
counting. Section 66 enacts that when the counting of the votes has been
f
completed, the Returning Officer shall, in the absence of any direction by the
F Election Commission to the contrary, forthwith declare the result of the election
in the manner provided by the Act or the Rules made under the Act. Section
67 requires the Returning Officer to report the result to the appropriate
authority and the Election Commission and the appropriate authority would
cause to be published in the Official Gazette the declaration containing the
G names of the elected candidates.

Section 67 A is also material and reads as under:

67A. Date of election of candidate. -For the purpose of this Act,
the date on which candidate is declared by the returning officer under
the provisions of section 53, or section 66, to be elected to a House
H
YOUARAJ RAI v. CHANDER BAHADUR KARKI [C.K. THAKKER, J.] 1191

of Parliament or of the 'Legislature of a State shall be the date of A•
election of that candidate.

Section 73 of the Act enjoins upon the Election Commission to issue
notification after declaration of result of elections in all constituencies upon
which the House is deemed to have been duly constituted. Part VI relates
to "Disputes regarding elections". Section 80 prohibits questioning of election B
except by way of election petition. Under Section 80A, it is the High Court
which can try the election petitions. Section 81 provides for presentation of
the election petition and prescribes the period of limitation. Sub-section ( 1)
thereof is material which this Court is called upon to interpret and may be
quoted in extenso.
c
81. Presentation of petitions.-(1) An election petition calling in
question any election may be presented on one or more of the grounds
specified in sub-section (I) of section 100 and section I 01 to the High
Court by any candidate at such election or any elector within forty-
five days from, but not earlier than the date of election of the returned D
candidate or if there are more than one returned candidate at the
election and dates of their election are different, the later of those two
dates.

The learned counsel for the appellants concedes that Section 81 of the
Act prescribes period of limitation and also mandates that an election petition E
calling in question any election either by a candidate or by any elector should
be filed within a period of forty-five days from the date of election of returned
candidate. The counsel also concedes that in all the three cases, the returned
..... candi~ates were declared elected (un-contested) on April 26, 2004 and
considering the said date, election petitions filed on June 25, 2004 were barred
by limitation. But the argument of the learned counsel is that where there are F
more than one returned candidate at the election and the dates of their
election are different, Section 81 also gives option to a candidate or an elector
to present such petition within forty-days from the last date on which one
of the candidates has been declared elected. According to the counsel,
admittedly the notification for general election to the Legislative Assembly for G
the State of Sikkim issued by the Election Commission expressly stated that
there were 32 constituencies for the Legislative Assembly for the State of
Sikkim and election was to be held for all those constituencies. The counsel
stated that except in three constituencies wherein the candidates were declared
elected (~n-contested), in rest of the constituencies, elections were held and
H
1192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. JO S.C.R. .- ...
A .voting was completed only on May lO, 2004. Results in those constituencies
'· were declared on May l 7, 2004. Election Petitions under the second part of
S~ction 81, therefore, could be filed within forty-five days from May 17, 2004.
Considering that date, election petitions were within the period of limitation.

It was also submitted that the limitation cannot run prior to the date of
B declaration of result of elections under Section 73 of the Act inasmuch as the
election process could not be said to have come to a final halt until a
declaration as required therein is made so as to attract the bar contained in
Article 329(b) of the Constitution.

already reproduced Section 81 of the Act. It lays down the
c periodWeof have
limitation for filing an election petition. Admittedly, it is in two
parts. The first part provides that an election petition calling in question any
election co.uld be filed by a candidate or an elector within forty-five days
'from the date of the election of the returned candidate'. The second part
of the section covers those cases where there are more than one returned
D candidate at the election and the dates of their elections are different. In such
cases, the later of the two dates would be the starting point of limitation for
the purpose of filing an election petition.

The learned counsel for the returned candidates. submitted, and itt our
opinion rightly, that the second part of Section 81 does not deal with election
E to Legislative Assembly or to the House of People (Lok Sabha), but to
Legislative Council of State or to Council of States (Rajya Sabha). That part
speaks of more than one returned candidate at the· election which is an
eventuality only in the election of Legislative Council of State or Council of
States where at a single election by the same electorate more than one ... .,
F candidate could be elected.

In this connection, the learned counsel for the:respondents drew our
attention to Articles 80 and 171 of the Constitution. Whereas Article 80 deals
with composition of Council of States, Article 171 relates to Legislative
Councils of .States. Clause (4) of Article 171 enacts that the members to
G Legislative Councils of States would be elected in accordance with the system
of proportional representation by means of single transferable vote. Part VII
of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules')
also deals with the manner of counting of votes at such election. Rules 76
to 81 clearly provide that as soon as a candidate secures the required quota
H of votes, he will be declared elected and surplus votes will be transferred in
YOUARAJ RAJ v. CHANDER BAHADUR KARKI [C.K. THAKKER, J.ll 193

favour of remaining candidates as indicated in the ballot papers as being next A
in order of preference by the elector. By such process, the required number
of candidates to be elected will be declared one by one. Thus, for instance,
if five candidates are to be elected in an election to the Council of States
(Rajya Sabha) from a particular Legislative Assembly of a State, the dates on
which they would be elected might be different because of the time required B
to count the preference of votes exercised by electors. No such situation,
however, will arise in case of election to a Legislative Assembly of a State
or House of the People.

The learned counsel also referred to the relevant provisions of the Act
as they originally stood in 1951 and the amended provisions after the C
Representation of the People (Second Amendment) Act, 1956 (Act 27 of 1956)
and the Representation of the People (Amendment) Act, 1961 (Act 14 of
1961 ). Section 81 of the Act as it originally stood prior to the Amendment
Act, 1956 did not expressly provide period of limitation for filing an election
petition. It, however, provided that an election petition calling in question
any election could be presented 'in such form and within such time as may D
be prescribed'. The word 'prescribed' was defined as 'prescribed by the rules
made under the Act'. Parliament, however, thought it fit to prescribe the
period of limitation. By the Amendment Act, 1956, therefore, it amended
Section 81 by expressly providing the period of limitation of forty five days
from the date of election of the 'returned candidate'. To avoid any doubt and E
to make the position explicitly clear as to what should be the date on which
a candidate can be said to have been declared elected, Parliament also inserted
Section 67A clarifying that the date on which the candidate is declared
f ... elected by the Returning Officer would be the date of election of that candidate.

It is also necessary to bear in mind that Section 53 ofthe Act provides p
that if the number of candidates is equal to number of seats to be filled, the
Returning Officer is required to forthwith declare such candidates to be duly
elected and only in the event of contest, poll would be held. Section 66
covers those cases where poll is felt necessary and requires the Returning
Officer to declare the result of the election forthwith after counting of votes.
G
The counsel also submitted that Section 54 of the Act, as originally
enacted, dealt with elections in constituencies where more than one candidate
was to be elected. Section 63 laid down method of voting at such election,
i.e. voting in 'plural member constituencies'. Section 8(2) of the Delimitation
Act, 1952 expressly enacted that 'all constituencies shall be either single H
.f •
1194 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R.

A member constituencies or two member constituencies'. It further stated that
'in every two-member constituency, one seat shall be reserved either for the
Scheduled Castes or for the Scheduled Tribes and the other seat shall not be
so reserved'. It is in the light of those provisions that the provision for
limitation contemplated two types of cases. In a two-member constituency,
B the dates on which candidates were declared elected might be different. Such
a case came up for consideration before the Constitution Bench of this Court
in V. V. Giri v. D. Suri Dora & Ors., [1960] 1SCR425: AIR (1959) SC 138. It
related to Parvatipuram Lok Sabha constituency in Andhra Pradesh which
was a two member constituency in which one seat was reserved for Scheduled
Caste candidate and other was kept non-reserved/general. At such election,
C ifthere is only one candidate for the reserved seat (Scheduled Caste), obviously
he would be declared elected as against such reserved seat as soon as the
date of scrutiny is over and on the date of withdrawal, there is not more than
one candidate. But for the other seat, i.e. non-reserved/ general seat, if there
are more than one candidate after the date of withdrawal, poll will be held and
D result will be declared only after counting of votes. In such cases, the later
part of Section 81 of the Act would apply and the benefit of extended period
of limitation can be claimed by the election petitioner.

Section 54 of the Act was, however, deleted by the Amendment Act,
1961. Consequently, Section 63 also was deleted by the same Amendment
E Act. Likewise, the Delimitation Act, 1972 provided readjustment of the allocation
of seats in the House of People and Legislative Assembly in each State.
Section 9(1) of the said Act required the Delimitation Commission to distribute
seats in the House of People {Lok Sabha) allocated to each State and seats
assigned to Legislative Assembly of each State to 'single member territorial
constituencies' and delimit them on the basis of latest census figures having
. ..,

F regard to the provisions of the Constitution. It also provided for reservation
of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. We no longer have
multi-member constituencies.

It may also be appropriate to refer to sub-section (3) of Section 4 and
sub·section (2) of Section 7 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 as
G amended in 1975 and 1980. Sub-section (3) of Section 4 states that 'every
Parliamentary Constituency shall be a single-member constituency. Likewise
sub-section (2) of Section 7 declares that 'every Assembly Constituency shall
be a single-member constituency'.

In view of the above provisions, in our considered opinion, the second
H
YOUARAJ RAI v. CHANDER BAHADUR KARKI [C.K. THAKKER, J.] 1195

part of Section 8 l cannot apply to any'election to a Legislative Assembly, hut A
it would apply only to Legislative Council of a State or Council of States. The
High Court was, therefore, right in holding that the relevant date for calculation
of the period of limitation was 'the date of election of the returned candidate'
and an election petition ought to be filed within forty-five days from such
date.
B
It was urged that the expression "election" has been defined in the Act
as an election to fill a seat or seats in either House of the Legislature of a
State and when the said expression is used in Section 81, it would have the
same meaning and it would include election to all constituencies in the State.

We are unable to uphold the argument. It is true that the term "election" C
in Section 2(d) defines as election to fill a seat or seats in either House of
Parliament or either House of the Legislature of a State. But it must be
remembered that the Act deals with election of both the Houses of Parliament
and State Legislatures and defines the exp:-ession "election". Moreover the
opening words of Section 2 are "unless the context otherwise requires". D
Hence, while construing, interpreting and applying the definition clause, the
Court has to keep in view the legislative mandate and intent and to consider
whether the context requires otherwise. As already observed earlier, Section
81 which is in two parts deals with different situations. The first part applies
to a Legislative Assembly while the second part applies to a Legislative
Council. E
The learned counsel for the respondent rightly relied on the following
observations of the High Court ofKerala in P.R. Francis v. A. V. Aryian, AIR
(1968) Ker 252;

Under Section 81 of the Act, 'an election petition calling in question F
any election may be presented by any candidate at such election or
any elector' and Section 80 prohibits an election being called in
question except by an election petition presented in accordance with
Section 81. 'Election' in this context means not the general election
or the entirety of the elections held in the State, but one election G
held in one constituency. A challenge to the entirety of elections
held in the State is therefore within the taboo of Section 80 of the Act.
(emphasis supplied)

Upholding of submission that the limitation for filing an election petition
should be reckoned not with reference to the date on which the. candidate H
.. '
1196 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. IO S.C.R.

A whose election is challenged was declared elected, but with reference to the
date on which the last candidate was declared elected at a general election
would not only make the provision cumbersome and contrary to the provisions
of the Act, particularly against the scheme of amendments introduced in 1956
and 1961 but would also make the starting point of limit!!.tion uncertain,
indefinite and fluctuating. Such construction would require complete details
B of all returned candidates of Legislative Assembly of a State. Moreover,
where the challenge is to an election of a Member of House of People (Lok
Sabha), full particulars in different constituencies throughout the country
must be before the Election Tribunal (High Court). The Tribunal also is bound
to inquire into such particulars with a view to ascertaining whether the
C election petition filed by the petitioner is or is not within the period specified
in Section 81 of the Act. Again, in case of dispute or contest on the issue
of limitation, the Election Tribunal is required to call for and inspect records
of all constituencies. Unless compelled, a court of law would not interpret
a provision in such a way which would frustrate legislative intent and make
the provision unworkable and impracticable.
D
Finally, the interpretation sought to be suggested by the respondents
is otherwise reasonable, just and equitable inasmuch as it has nexus with the
'cause of action'. When a defeated candidate or an elector has grievance
against an act of declaring a particular candidate successful at the election,
E his cause of action arises as soon as such declaration is made. He, therefore,
can challenge that act. He is not concerned with other constituencies or
candidates. He cannot be allowed to join his cause of action with declaration
of results in other constituencies or returned candidates in those constituencies.
[Shri Chandrakant Shukla v. Maharaja Martand Singh, [1973] 3 SCC 194:
AIR (1973) SC 584]
F
Thus, taking any view of the matter, we find no infirmity in the order
passed by the High Court which calls for interference by this Court.

For the foregoing reasons, all the appeals deserve to be dismissed and
are hereby dismissed with costs.
G
In view of dismissal of appeals, we express no opinion· on an application
seeking substitution in Civil Appeal No. 8253 of 2004.

D.G. Appeals dismissed.