*Orders deletion of officials
Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Apr 20: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that persons who are not contesting candidates cannot be impleaded as respondents in an election petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Justice Sanjay Dhar passed the ruling while deciding preliminary issue in election petition No. 1/2024, Harsh Dev Singh Versus UT of J&K & Others. The issue before the court was whether there was misjoinder of parties in the election petition and, if so, its legal effect.
The petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate Aseem Kumar Sawhney, along with Advocate Shabab Malik, while the respondents were represented by assisting counsel to Senior AAG Monika Kohli and Advocate Vilakshan Singh.
The Court noted that apart from impleading contesting candidates, the petitioner had also arrayed respondents, who were officers and officials and not candidates in the election. Referring to Sections 82, 86, 87 and 99 of the Representation of the People Act, the High Court held that the statutory scheme clearly confines an election dispute to candidates at the election and does not permit impleadment of other persons as respondents at the initial stage.
While examining the legal position, the Court relied upon Supreme Court rulings including Jyoti Basu Versus Debi Ghosal and B S Yadiyurappa Versus Mahalingappa, and observed that the concept of “proper parties” is alien to an election petition. It held that even though the Code of Civil Procedure applies to election petitions, it does so only subject to the provisions of the Representation of the People Act and cannot be invoked to add parties contrary to Section 82.
The Court also rejected the contention that persons against whom allegations of corrupt practice are made can be impleaded from the outset by invoking Section 99 of the Act. It clarified that such persons may be proceeded against at a later stage, if the material on record so warrants, but they cannot be joined as respondents merely on the basis of allegations in the petition.
Holding that respondents had been wrongly impleaded, the Court answered the preliminary issue in favour of misjoinder. However, it made it clear that such defect would not result in dismissal of the election petition. Instead, following the settled legal position, the Court directed deletion of respondents from the array of parties and asked the petitioner to file an amended petition or memo of parties by the next date of hearing.
The matter has now been listed for further proceedings on May 11, 2026.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
