Election petitions must be presented personally, not merely filed by counsel, Supreme Court rules in Paneer Selvam case

The petitioner filed an election petition challenging the election of Respondent No. 1 from the Thirumayam Assembly Constituency, alleging corrupt practice and seeking that the election be declared void

The Madras High Court dismissed the petition as not maintainable because it had been presented by the petitioner’s counsel, contrary to Rule 7 of the Madras High Court Election Petitions Rules, 1967, which required presentation by the petitioner in person

Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner asserted that he had personally presented the petition, relying, among other things, on a security entry pass and CCTV footage; the Court found these materials did not establish personal presentation

Whether Section 81(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 requires an election petition to be presented by the petitioner personally

Whether non-compliance with that requirement renders the election petition liable to dismissal under Section 86(1), and whether Rule 7 of the Madras High Court Election Petitions Rules, 1967 is consistent with the Act

Section 81(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 prescribes the requirements for presenting an election petition, including that it be presented “by” a qualified petitioner; Section 86(1) requires dismissal of a petition that does not comply with Section 81

The Act is a special, self-contained code requiring strict compliance with its statutory requirements

In G.V. Sreerama Reddy v. Returning Officer, the Court identified presentation by the petitioner as a distinct requirement under Section 81(1) and explained the importance of the petitioner’s presentation of the petition

Under Jamal Uddin Ahmad v. Abu Saleh Najmuddin, a High Court may regulate the ministerial and procedural incidents of receiving documents where its rules do not conflict with the statute

Sheo Sadan Singh v. Mohan Lal Gautam recognises substantial compliance where the petitioner is present when the petition is presented by an advocate’s clerk

By contrast, a defect arising only under Section 83 does not attract dismissal under Section 86(1), as explained in Dr. Vijay Laxmi Sadho v. Jagdish; that principle does not excuse non-compliance with Section 81

The Court held that presentation “by” the petitioner is an express and mandatory component of Section 81(1), and that Section 86(1) makes non-compliance fatal to the petition

Rule 7 did not add a conflicting statutory requirement; it validly regulated the manner in which the High Court received election petitions, consistent with the High Court’s authority over ministerial and procedural matters

The petitioner’s entry pass established his presence in the court premises, but neither it, the deposit receipt issued in counsel’s name, nor the asserted CCTV footage established that he personally presented the petition

The petitioner also did not claim to have been present with counsel at presentation, so the substantial-compliance principle in Sheo Sadan Singh did not apply

The distinction in Vijay Laxmi Sadho was likewise inapplicable because the defect here concerned Section 81, not Section 83

It upheld the High Court’s decision and dismissed the special leave petition as without merit