1968 (8) TMI 198 - SC - Indian Laws

Election appeal dismissed due to failure to include necessary party, highlights need for procedural reforms

K. Venkateswara Rao And Anr Versus Bekkam Narasimha Reddi & Ors

The appeal challenging the election of the first respondent to the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly, based on allegations of corrupt practices, ... - Issues Involved:1. Allegations of corrupt practices in the election.2. Non-impleading of a necessary party (V.K. Reddi) in the election petition.3. Applicability of the Indian Limitation Act to election petitions.4. Interpretation of relevant sections of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Allegations of Corrupt Practices in the Election:The appellants filed an Election Petition challenging the election of the first respondent to the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly, alleging corrupt practices, including illegal gratification. Specifically, it was alleged that V.K. Reddi was made to withdraw his candidature by the first respondent on payment of Rs. 10,000, which constituted an illegal gratification. The court noted that the taint of illegal gratification attaches to both the payer and the payee, thereby implicating V.K. Reddi in the corrupt practice.2. Non-impleading of a Necessary Party (V.K. Reddi) in the Election Petition:The first respondent filed an application for dismissal of the petition on the ground that V.K. Reddi, who was charged with corrupt practices, had not been impleaded as a party, making the petition liable for dismissal under Section 82(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The trial judge held that the allegations amounted to an imputation of corrupt practice to V.K. Reddi and dismissed the amendment application to implead him. The court emphasized that failure to join a necessary party within the prescribed period of 45 days necessitates dismissal of the petition under Section 86(1).3. Applicability of the Indian Limitation Act to Election Petitions:The appellants argued that an election petition is an application to the High Court and thus the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, should apply, allowing for condonation of delay. However, the court held that the Representation of the People Act is a complete and self-contained code, which does not admit the introduction of the principles or provisions of the Indian Limitation Act. The court clarified that the Act's specific provisions, such as Sections 81, 82, and 117, must be strictly followed, and failure to comply results in mandatory dismissal of the petition.4. Interpretation of Relevant Sections of the Representation of the People Act, 1951:The court examined various sections of the Act, including:- Section 82: Mandates joining as respondents any candidate against whom allegations of corrupt practice are made.- Section 83: Requires full particulars of any corrupt practice alleged.- Section 86(1): Directs the High Court to dismiss an election petition not complying with Sections 81, 82, or 117.- Section 99: Requires the High Court to record findings on corrupt practices and name guilty persons, providing them an opportunity to show cause if they are not parties to the petition.The court concluded that the failure to implead V.K. Reddi, a necessary party, within the statutory period rendered the petition liable to dismissal. It was noted that the Act does not equate an election petition with a civil suit, and the procedural aspects are governed strictly by the Act's provisions, not by the general principles of civil procedure or limitation laws.Judgment:The appeal was dismissed with costs, affirming the necessity of strict compliance with the Representation of the People Act's provisions regarding the impleading of necessary parties and the inapplicability of the Indian Limitation Act to election petitions. The court emphasized that any changes to address the procedural rigidity must come from legislative amendments.