Judgment :- 1. The petitioner who is a voter of the Mala Assembly constituency challenges the election of the 1st respondent to the Kerala State Assembly. The 2nd respondent was one of the candidates who filed his Domination before the Returning Officer and who withdrew later from the contest. In the petition various corrupt practices are alleged to have been committed by the 1st respondent. 2. The 1st respondent has filed written statement denying the allegations against him. Apart from raising various contentions in the written statement challenging the election petition 1st respondent concluded stating that the election petition is liable to be dismissed in-limine under S.86 (1) for non-compliance with S.81 (3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 3. In Para.5(xi) of the election petition it has been averred that at the instigation of the 1st respondent a video cassette under the caption 'Malayude Purogathy' (Mala's Progress) was widely circulated in the constituency and that Shri Jose P. George, Government Pleader, Kerala High Court and Shri Thomas Thottappally, Veterinary Doctor, Poly Clinic. Valiyaparambu addressed meetings. In the above paragraph it is also stated that the video cassette has been produced in a sealed cover. In the list of documents mentioned in the election petition it is stated that video cassette was taken by "Kerala Audio and Video, Kallettumkara" and it was widely used for the election propaganda of the 1st respondent. The contention of the 1st respondent is that the copy of the video cassette was not given to him and the copy of the election petition served on him does not contain a copy of the video cassette or even a transcript of the same. According to the 1st respondent, the allegations in the election petition make it clear that the video cassette has been made an integral part of the election petition and therefore without seeing the cassette played and hearing its contents the allegation of corrupt practice made in Para.5 (xi) of the election petition will not be complete. It is also stated that the 1st respondent would not be in a position to answer the allegation properly as a copy of the video cassette has not been served on him. 4. It is also stated that the 1st respondent would not be in a position to answer the allegation properly as a copy of the video cassette has not been served on him. 4. in Para.5 (i) and (ii) of the election petition several allegations of corrupt practices were made against him on the ground that the 2nd respondent who was a candidate in the election withdrew from the contest and published a notice that he was doing so on an assurance that the Kerala Government under 1st respondent's leadership bad decided to give favourable consideration to his community's demand for inclusion in the list of scheduled castes. In the petition it is asserted that the notice was issued at the instigation of the 1st respondent and that be obtained the 2nd respondent's signature to the said notice and that it was printed at the 1st respondent's cost. First respondent contended that though it is mentioned in the election petition that a notice and a pamphlet printed by C.D. Printers were produced along with the election petition a copy of the election petition served on him does not contain copies of the notice and pamphlet referred to in Para.5(i) of the election petition and in the list of documents. 5. In Para.5(xvi) petitioner has stated that the 1st respondent committed corrupt practice by asking government servants including Shri. P. M. Shahul Hameed, Teacher of Govt. U. P. School, Kadupassery to lead processions in support of his candidature. Two photographs with their negatives alleging that Shri Shahul Hameed led a procession as stated in Para.5 (xvi) of the election petition were produced. First respondent contended that copy of the same was not given to him and so without seeing it, he is not in a position to answer effectively to the said accusation. It is also contended that the copies of the photographs form an integral part of the election petition and yet no copy of it was served on him along with the copy of the election petition and hence the petition suffers from a total non-compliance with the provisions of S.81 (3) read with S.83 (1) and (2) of the Act. 6. Video cassette was produced before the court in a sealed cover along with the list of documents. 6. Video cassette was produced before the court in a sealed cover along with the list of documents. Petitioner contended that keeping the video cassette in the sealed cover until the commencement of trial cannot in any manner prejudice the 1st respondent. It is also contended that the 1st respondent is aware of the cassette and the allegations made in the petition with regard to that and therefore there is no merit in his contention that be cannot effectively defend his case without seeing it. It is further urged that all these documents are intended to be proved when the petition is taken up for trial and hence there is no force in the contention of the 1st respondent that they are integral parts of the election petition and hence failure to supply the copies to him would be fatal to the election petition." 7. Admittedly copy of the video cassette or even a transcript of the same was not supplied to the 1st respondent. The petitioner proceeds on the footing that the 1st respondent is guilty of a corrupt practice by reason of his alleged preparation of the cassette and its use in the constituency, and the petitioner's proposal to use it in evidence. This would make it clear that the video cassette has been made an integral part of the election petition. Without seeing the cassette played and hearing its contents allegation of corrupt practice made in Para.5(xi) of the petition will not be complete. The failure to serve a copy of the video cassette along with the copy of the election petition tantamounts to non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of S.81(3) of the Representation of People Act, 1951. 8. In M. Karunanidhi v. H.V. Hande (AIR 1983 SC 58) the Supreme Court in Para.41 held: "In the absence of the photograph the averment contained in the petition would be incomplete. The photograph referred to in Para.18(b) was therefore an integral part of the election petition. It follows that there was total non-compliance with requirements of sub-section (3) of S.81 of the Act by failure to serve the appellant with a copy of the election petition". The photograph referred to in Para.18(b) was therefore an integral part of the election petition. It follows that there was total non-compliance with requirements of sub-section (3) of S.81 of the Act by failure to serve the appellant with a copy of the election petition". In the decision it was also held that the words "copies thereof" in subsection (3) of S.81 read in the context of S.83(2) must necessarily refer not only to the election petition proper but also to schedules or annexures thereto containing particulars of any corrupt practice alleged therein. 9. Rigour of S.83(2) cannot be invoked where the documents are merely produced as evidence in the case but which for reasons of clarity and to lend force to the petition are not kept back but produced or filed with the election petition. Documents which are integral parts of the election petition stand on a different footing. Copies of such documents whether shown as annexures in the main petition or fully described therein should be supplied to the respondents along with the election petition. 10. The test to be applied in determining whether the video cassette, photograph, notice and the pamphlet form an integral part of the election petition depends entirely on the allegations in the petition. From the pleadings in the petition it is difficult to hold that the video cassette and other documents referred to in the election petition can only be treated as pieces of evidence to be produced later. The allegations surely indicate that the video cassette and other documents form an integral part of the election petition and without which the election petition would fail. 11. Election petition cannot be maintained if the copies supplied to the respondents do not truly represent the original petition filed before the court. Failure to send copy of the election petition with documents which form the integral part of the petition tentamounts to violation of the mandate in S.81(3) of the Act. Though the election petition mentions the video cassette, photograph, notice and pamphlet the petitioner did not care to give copies of the same to the 1st respondent and this has resulted in virtual denial of opportunity to effectively put forward his defence in the case. 12. Petitioner merely produced the documents and no steps were taken to forward copies of the same to the 1st respondent. 12. Petitioner merely produced the documents and no steps were taken to forward copies of the same to the 1st respondent. Regarding the video cassette the petitioner wanted it to be kept in a sealed cover to be opened during the trial only. Without seeing the video cassette it would well nigh be impossible for the respondent to formulate his defence. At least a short description of what is contained in the video cassette should have been given in the election petition or in its annexure. To give a copy of the video cassette to the 1st respondent was not a formidable task. Similarly there was no difficulty to give copies of the photographs and documents which the averments would show are integrated in the petition. The petitioner could have easily shown these documents as annexures to the petition and without doing so he kept them from the reach of the 1st respondent. 13. In Mithilesh Kumar v. Baidyanath (AIR 1984 SC 305 at para 8) it is stated as follows: "It is now well settled by a large catena of authorities of this Court that the electoral process by which the verdict of the people has been given is a sacrosanct one and cannot be lightly set at naught unless the grounds mentioned in the Act for setting aside an election are held to be proved. In these circumstances, it is manifest that the provisions of S.81 (3) of the Act should be construed to the letter and spirit of the law because if the election petitioner does not give full and complete notice of the allegations made against the returned candidate, he runs the risk of his petition being dismissed in limine". In Satya Narain v. Dhuja Ram (AIR. 1974 SC 1185) it is held as follows: "The right to challenge an election is a special right conferred under a self contained special law and the court will have to seek answers to the questions raised within the four corners of the Act. The powers of the court are circumscribed by the provisions. It is not a common law right and an election petition cannot be equated with a plaint in a civil suit". In the above decision it is laid down that S.81(3) is mandatory and non-compliance with it will entail dismissal of the election petition. 14. The powers of the court are circumscribed by the provisions. It is not a common law right and an election petition cannot be equated with a plaint in a civil suit". In the above decision it is laid down that S.81(3) is mandatory and non-compliance with it will entail dismissal of the election petition. 14. In page 17 of the election petition (paper book) lists of documents are given. The documents mentioned are not shown as annexures in the election petition. Video Cassette was produced in a sealed cover and documents 2.3 and 4 mentioned in the list of documents were produced separately. They were not appended to the election petition and copies of it were not produced to be forwarded to the 1st respondent Copies of these documents were not sent to the 1st respondent along with the copy of election petition. Election petition filed without copies required by S.81(3) will not be a complete petition and it is bit by S.86. S.80 stipulated that no election shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with the provisions of the Act. S.86 (1) enables the High Court to dismiss the ejection petition which does not comply with the provisions of S.81, 82 or 117. S.81 deals with the presentation of the petition. S.81(3) provides that every election petition shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned in the petition and every such copy shall be attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition. The following principles are established by the Supreme Court in Mithilesh Kumar Pandey v. Baidyanath Yadav and others (AIR. 1984 SC. The following principles are established by the Supreme Court in Mithilesh Kumar Pandey v. Baidyanath Yadav and others (AIR. 1984 SC. 305) (i) that where the copy of the election petition served on the returned candidate contains only clerical or typographical mistakes which are of no consequence, the petition cannot be dismissed straightway under S.86 of the Act, (ii) a true copy means a copy which is wholly and substantially the same as the original and where there are insignificant or minimal mistakes the Court may not take notice thereof, (iii) where the copy contains important omissions or discrepancies of a vital nature, which are likely to cause prejudice to the defence of the returned candidate it cannot be said that there has been a substantial compliance of the provisions of S.81 (3) of the Act, (iv) prima facie, the statute uses the words "true copy" and the concept of substantial compliance cannot be extended too far to include serious or vital mistakes which shed the character of a true copy so that the copy furnished to the returned candidate cannot be said to be a true copy within the meaning of S.81 (3) of the Act, and (v) as S.81(3) is meant to protect and safeguard the sacrosanct electoral process so as not to disturb the verdict of the voters, there is no room for giving a liberal or broad interpretation to the provisions of the said section. In Sharif-ud-Din v. Abdul Gani (AIR 1980 SC 303) it has been held that if a law even though it may be procedural in character means that an act must be done in a particular manner and further provides that certain consequences should follow if the act is not done in that manner courts have no option but to enforce the law as it is. 15. S.83 (2) applies only to schedules or annexures which constitute an integral part of the election petition and not to a document which is produced as evidence in support of the election petition. When the documents relied by the petitioner form an integral part of the election petition it is indispensable that their copies should be forwarded to the respondents. 16. Such documents which are so vital and to which answer is necessary in defence of the case cannot be kept off from the respondents. When the documents relied by the petitioner form an integral part of the election petition it is indispensable that their copies should be forwarded to the respondents. 16. Such documents which are so vital and to which answer is necessary in defence of the case cannot be kept off from the respondents. From the language and scheme of S.80 and 86 of the Act and Art.329 of the Constitution there cannot be any escape from the conclusion that if those requirements of S.83(1) which are mandatory are not complied with, the court has no discretion in the matter but to dismiss the petition. Merely for the reason that it is always open to the respondents to inspect the documents produced in the election petition it cannot be held that failure to produce documents which form an integral part of the petition is not fatal. 17. In certain cases there may be documents which are merely meant to be produced in evidence. Such documents cannot be construed as integral part of the election petition. The failure to produce such a document is not fatal to the election petition. But documents which are treated as integral parts of the election petition must be signed and verified by the petitioner and should be given to the respondents. Failure to comply with the mandatory provision is detrimental. In Ishalchand v. Harlal (AIR 1978 MP 174) it is held as follows: "Documents which are merely evidence in the case but which for reasons of clarity and to lend force to the petition are not kept back but are produced or filed along with the election petition, are in no sense an integral part of the averments of the petition and therefore, cannot be treated as part of the election petition and need not be served upon the respondent. But where annexure; or schedules are treated as integrated with the election petition, but not including in the election petition the averments set out in the annexures or schedules, law requires that those annexures or schedules must be signed and verified and their copies must be served on the respondent, if the requirement regarding service of election petition is to be wholly complied with". From the facts and circumstances of the case it can be seen that the allegations in the election petition would really show that the documents form integral part of the election petition and therefore it was really necessary to serve copies of the same on the 1st respondent and the petitioner cannot contend that as be has filed the documents and produced the video cassette in the court the 1st respondent can very well take copies of the same and defend his case. Counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that when the petitioner produced the video cassette he has filed a petition to keep the same in a sealed cover and with a further request that it should not be opened till the trial started and thereby the 1st respondent is prevented from seeing what the cassette contained and this has resulted in making his defence not possible at all. An election petition has to comply with the requirements of S.81 at the time when it was filed and any defect of non-compliance with S.81 cannot be permitted to be rectified at any time thereafter. The rule of substantial compliance has no application to non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of S.81(3) of the Act. For the reasons stated above I find that the election petition is liable to be dismissed under S.86(1) for non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of S.81(3) of the Act. Election Petition is accordingly dismissed with costs. Cost quantified at Rs. 1500/-