- Case
- SANGRAM SAMPATRAO DESHMUKH v. THE ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA THROUGH THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER AND 79 ORS (Bombay High Court, 02-01-2025)
- Law
- Code of Civil Procedure, Constitution of India, Representation of the People Act.
Facts: Sangram Sampatrao Deshmukh filed an election petition challenging the election of Respondent No. 4 to the Pune Division Graduates' constituency, alleging irregularities in the electoral roll preparation and online voter registration. Respondent No. 4 filed an application for dismissal of the election petition, contending non-compliance with Sections 81, 82, and 117 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The Election Commission (Respondents 1, 2, and 3) sought deletion of their names from the petition, arguing they are improperly impleaded.
Procedural Posture: The case involves an original election petition before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, along with applications for dismissal of the petition and deletion of parties.
Issue: (1) Whether the Election Commission of India and its officers can be impleaded as respondents in an election petition. (2) Whether the election petition is liable to be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for non-compliance with Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, due to a lack of concise statement of material facts and particulars of corrupt practices. (3) Whether the grounds raised in the election petition, pertaining to irregularities in electoral roll preparation and online voter registration, constitute valid grounds for challenging the election under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.
Holding: (1) The Election Commission of India and its officers cannot be impleaded as respondents to the Election Petition. Application (L) No. 22668 of 2021 is allowed. (2) The Election Petition is rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. Application (L) No. 1145 of 2022 is allowed.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that Section 82 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, restricts impleadment to contesting candidates or those against whom allegations of corrupt practices are made. The Election Commission and its officers, being statutory authorities acting under superintendence and control, cannot be impleaded. The Court relied on Supreme Court decisions like Jyoti Basu & Ors. Vs. Debi Ghosal & Ors. and Michael B. Fernandes Vs. C. K. Jaffar Sharif & Ors. to support this view. Further, the Court found that the election petition lacked a concise statement of material facts and particulars of corrupt practices, as required by Section 83 of the Act. The petition failed to demonstrate how the alleged irregularities materially affected the election result, particularly given the significant margin of votes. The Court cited Kanimozhi Karunanidhi Vs. A. Santhana Kumar and others and Karim Uddin Barbhuiya Vs. Aminul Haque Laskar and others to emphasize the necessity of strict compliance with pleading requirements in election petitions.
