Election Petition Presented by Counsel, Not the Petitioner, Fails Section 81 RP Act: Supreme Court

The petitioner challenged the election of respondent No. 1 from the Thirumayam Assembly Constituency, declared on 04.05.2026, alleging the corrupt practice of undue influence through false declarations about his spouse's assets in his Form 26 affidavit (para 2). On 22.07.2026 the Madras High Court dismissed the election petition as not maintainable because it had been presented by the petitioner's counsel. Rule 7 of the Madras High Court Election Petitions Rules, 1967 requires every election petition to be presented by the petitioner in person before the II Assistant Registrar or another officer named by the Registrar (para 3). The petitioner then filed a special leave petition (para 4).

Section 81(1) has five components, one being that the petition must be presented 'by' the petitioner, as G.V. Sreerama Reddy held; Section 86(1) makes dismissal mandatory, so the requirement is no mere formality and the defect is not curable (paras 6-7, 9). The RP Act is a complete and self-contained code demanding strict compliance (para 8). The original Section 81(2), which allowed presentation through an authorised person or by registered post, was omitted in 1966 (paras 10-11). Following Jamal Uddin Ahmad, a High Court may regulate the receipt of election petitions as a ministerial incident of its jurisdiction, so Rule 7 does not go beyond Section 81 (paras 13-18). The petitioner's CISF entry pass and CCTV footage showed only his presence in the court premises, and the Section 117 deposit receipt was in his advocate's name (para 19). Vijay Laxmi Sadho concerned defects under Section 83 or the High Court rules alone, not Section 81 (paras 20-21); and unlike Sheo Sadan Singh, the petitioner did not claim to have been present when his advocate presented it (para 22).