Meghalaya High Court Dismisses Election Petition Over Improper Filing Procedure

The Meghalaya High Court has ruled that election petitions filed under Section 81(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 must be personally presented by the candidate or an elector before the authorised officer of the High Court. The Court held that failure to follow this mandatory procedure is a fatal defect that cannot be corrected later.

The case arose from an election petition filed by Titosstar Well Chyne challenging the result of the Pynursla Assembly constituency election. Respondent Gavin Miguel Mylliem questioned the maintainability of the petition, arguing that it had not been personally presented as required by law.

Justice H.S. Thangkhiew observed that the Gauhati High Court Rules designate the Stamp Reporter as the authorised officer for receiving election petitions. However, evidence showed that the filing process was handled by the petitioner’s advocate instead of the petitioner personally. The Stamp Reporter also confirmed during evidence that the petition had not been directly presented before her by the petitioner.

The Court stressed that election disputes are serious matters requiring strict procedural compliance. It rejected the petitioner’s argument that the defect could be overlooked through the doctrine of substantial compliance, clarifying that such relaxation applies only to certain curable defects and not to improper presentation under Section 81(1).

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the election petition without examining the merits of the allegations.