JUDGMENT - R.M. LODHA, J.:---This order shall dispose of the chamber summons taken out by respondent Nos. 10, 11 and 12 in the Election petition for deletion of their names from the election petition.

2.Dr. Chandrachud, the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the said respondent Nos. 10, 11 and 12 submits that the said respondents are not necessary parties in the election petition. According to the learned Additional Solicitor General, section 82 of Representation of Peoples Act makes the provision about the parties to the election petition and he submits that the respondent Nos. 10, 11 and 12 do not fall in that category. In support of his submission, he relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in (Jyoti Basu and others v. Debi Ghosal and others)1, A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 983 and (B. Sundara Rami Reddy v. Election Commission of India and others)2, 1991 Supp (2) S.C.C. page 624.

3.The chamber summons is opposed by the learned Counsel for the election petitioner and he submits that in view of the averments made in paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 of the election petition, the respondent Nos. 10, 11 and 12 have rightly been impleaded as parties in the election petition and they do not deserve to be deleted from array of parties. In support of his submission. Mr. Oak, the learned Counsel for the election petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in (Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar v. Roop Singh Rathore)3, A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 1545.

4.Section 82 of Representation of Peoples Act reads thus :

"82. Parties to the petition.---A petitioner shall join as respondents to his petition

(a) where the petitioner, in addition to claiming a declaration that the election of all or any of the returned candidates is void claims a further declaration that he himself or any other candidates has been duly elected, all the contesting candidates other than the petitioner, and where no such further declaration is claimed, all the returned candidates; and

(b) any other candidate against whom allegations of any corrupt practice are made in the petition."

5.The aforesaid provision contained in section 82 makes it incumbent upon the election petitioner to join as respondents to the election petition the returned candidates and where the petitioner claims a further declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected, then all contesting candidates are required to be impleaded. In a case where there are allegations of corrupt practice, the candidate against whom allegation of corrupt practices are made in the petition is required to be impleaded in the election petition. In Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar (supra), the Apex Court held that when all the necessary parties have been joined to an election petition, merely because a party who is not a necessary party has been impleaded, it cannot be said that there is breach of the provisions of section 82 and on that ground question of dismissing the election petition does not arise.

6.In Jyoti Basu (supra) the Apex Court has ruled that no one will be joined as a party to the election petition otherwise as provided by sections 82 and 86(4) of the Representation of People Act. The Apex Court further held that the person who is not a candidate may not be joined as respondent to the election petition.

7.In paragraphs 9 and 13 of the report the Apex Court held thus :

"9. Section 81 prescribes who may present an election petition. It may be any candidate at such election; it may be any elector of the constituency; it may be none else. Section 82 is headed "Parties to the petition" and Clause (a) provides that the petitioner shall join as respondents to the petition the returned candidates if the relief claimed is confined to a declaration that the election of all or any of the returned candidates is void and all the contesting candidates if a further declaration is sought that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected. Clause (b) of section 82 requires the petitioner to join as resp

Click Here to Read the rest of this document