TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court clarifies election petition rules; only candidates can be respondents.</h1> <h3>JYOTI BASU & OTHERS. Versus DEBI GHOSAL & OTHERS.</h3> The Supreme Court held that only candidates at the election may be joined as respondents to an election petition under Sections 82 and 86(4) of the ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether non-candidates can be impleaded as parties to an election petition.2. Interpretation of relevant provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.Summary:Issue 1: Whether non-candidates can be impleaded as parties to an election petition.The appellants, including the Chief Minister and two Ministers of West Bengal, were impleaded by the first respondent in an election petition questioning the election of the second respondent. The appellants argued that they could not be impleaded as they were not candidates at the election. The High Court of Calcutta dismissed their application to strike out their names, leading to this appeal.The Supreme Court held that the concept of 'proper parties' is not relevant in election law. Only those persons who are expressly directed to be impleaded by the Representation of the People Act, 1951, can be made parties to an election petition. The Court emphasized that the election petition is a statutory proceeding, and only those rules which the statute makes and applies are relevant. The Court concluded that only candidates at the election may be joined as respondents to an election petition under Sections 82 and 86(4) of the Act, and no others.Issue 2: Interpretation of relevant provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.The Court examined the relevant provisions of the Constitution and the Representation of the People Acts of 1950 and 1951. It noted that the right to elect, be elected, and dispute an election are statutory rights subject to statutory limitations. The Court reiterated that the Representation of the People Act, 1951, is a complete and self-contained code for election disputes.The Court referred to Sections 81, 82, and 86(4) of the Act to determine who may be joined as respondents to an election petition. Section 82 specifies that the petitioner shall join as respondents the returned candidates and any other candidate against whom allegations of corrupt practice are made. Section 86(4) allows any candidate not already a respondent to be joined as a respondent. The Court found no provision allowing non-candidates to be joined as respondents.The Court also addressed the argument that the Civil Procedure Code applies to election petitions, noting that it applies only 'as far as may be' and subject to the provisions of the Representation of the People Act. The Court concluded that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code cannot be invoked to permit what the Act does not allow.The appeal was allowed, and the names of the appellants and the seventh respondent were directed to be struck out from the array of parties in the election petition. The Court also considered several decisions cited before it, including S.B. Adityen & Anr. v. S. Kandaswami & Ors., Dwijendra Lal Sen Gupta v. Herekrishna Koner, H.R. Gokhale v. Bharucha Noshir C. & Ors., and S. Iqbal Singh v. S. Gurdas Singh Badal & Ors.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
