Election disputes must comply strictly with statutory provisions regarding party joinder, as outlined in the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

ORDER :.

Krishna Rao, J.

1. The petitioner has filed an Election Petition seeking declaration that the election of the returned candidate being the respondent no.1 from 18-Basirhat Parliamentary Constituency of the District North 24 Parganas in the House of the People is void and set aside, further declaration that the petitioner has been duly elected from the said Parliamentary Constituency.

2. In the Election Petition, the petitioner has made the Chief Election Commissioner and the Returning Officer as the respondent nos. 15 and 16 respectively. On receipt of the notice of the instant case, both the authorities have entered appearance in the case through their Learned Advocates.

3. The respondent no.16 has also filed written statement to the Election Petition. The petitioner has examined herself as P.W.1. The respondent nos. 15 and 16 have not cross-examined the P.W.1 and have filed their respective applications being G.A. No. 1 of 2025 and G.A. No. 2 of 2025 praying for deletion of their names from the Election Petition as respondents.

4. Mr. Saikat Banerjee, Learned Senior Advocate representing the respondent nos. 16 and Mr. Soumya Mazumdar, Learned Senior Advocate representing the respondent no.15 relied upon Sections 82 and 86(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and submits that the law does not permit the Election Commissioner and the Returning Officer to be the party respondent to the Election Petition.

5. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent nos. 15 and 16 that in terms of Section 82 of the 1951 Act, the persons named therein can only be made parties in an Election Petition. There is no other provision available in 1951 Act as to who would be made respondent. They submit that Section 82 provides that the petitioner in the Election Petition to join as respondent, persons who were candidates in the particular election. It does not oblige the petitioner to join as a person, against whom even the allegations of corrupt practice, if any, has been made. The concept of “proper party” is alien to the election disputes under the 1951 Act. They submit that in terms of Section 87 of the 1951 Act, the Civil Procedure Code applies subject to the provisions of Section 1951 Act and Rules made thereunder. It is submitted that only those may be joined as respondents to the Election Petition who are mentioned in Section 82 and Section 86(4) of the 1951 Act.

6. The respondent nos. 15 and 16 in support of their submissions relied upon the following judgments:

i. Baburam Tudu vs. Shambhunath Mandi & Ors. reported in 2002 SCC OnLine Cal 458.

ii. Jyoti Basu & Ors. vs. Debi Ghosal & Ors. reported in (1982) 1 SCC 691 .

iii. Michael B. Fernandes vs. C.K. Jaffer Sharief & Ors. reported in (2002) 3 SCC 521.

iv. B. Sundara Rami Reddy vs. Election Commission of India & Ors. reported in 1991 Supp (2) SCC 624.

v. Sangram Sampatrao Deshmukh vs. Election Commissioner of India & Ors. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 8.

7. Mr. Billwadal Bhattacharyya, Learned Senior Advocate representing the petitioner submits that the respondent no.16 being the Returning Officer has filed written statement to the Election Petition and at the flag end of the matter, the respondent no.16 has filed an application for deletion of its name from the case is barred by res-judicata. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the judgment in the case of Bhanu Kumar Jain vs. Archana Kumar and Another reported in (2005) 1 SCC 787 and submitted that th