Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Returning Officer cannot be made a respondent, as only candidates (returned candidate and contesting candidates) are proper parties under Section 82; non-candidates like RO are excluded per Supreme Court precedent, overriding claims of being a proper party for rebutting allegations. Challenges to RO's actions (e.g., nomination scrutiny, counting) must be via election petition against candidates, not by joining RO. ["Shakuntala Singh v. Dauram Ratankar and Others - Chhattisgarh"] ["NAHAKPAM INDRAJIT SINGH vs MD. AMIN SHAH - Manipur"]
In the high-stakes world of electoral disputes, candidates often question decisions made by election officials, such as the Returning Officer (RO). A common query arises: can returning officer be made a respondent in election petition? This issue strikes at the heart of election law under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA). Understanding the rules on parties to an election petition is crucial to avoid dismissal at the threshold.
This post breaks down the legal position, drawing from statutory provisions, Supreme Court judgments, and related case law. Note that while this provides general insights, it is not a substitute for professional legal advice tailored to specific circumstances.
Generally, the Returning Officer cannot be made a respondent in an election petition. Section 82 of the RPA strictly limits respondents to:- The returned candidate.- Contesting candidates (if a further declaration of election is sought).- Candidates against whom corrupt practices are alleged. S. Mathiarasan VS K. Kalaimani - 2011 0 Supreme(Mad) 3384
This provision ensures focused, time-bound trials by excluding public officials like the RO. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the concept of proper parties like the Returning Officer is alien to election disputes. S. Mathiarasan VS K. Kalaimani - 2011 0 Supreme(Mad) 3384
Section 82 prescribes exact respondents:
(a) where the petitioner... claims a further declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected, all the contesting candidates other than the petitioner... (b) any other candidate against whom allegations of any corrupt practice are made. S. Mathiarasan VS K. Kalaimani - 2011 0 Supreme(Mad) 3384
Public officials are deliberately excluded to confine disputes to candidates. This self-contained code under RPA prioritizes electoral finality. S. Mathiarasan VS K. Kalaimani - 2011 0 Supreme(Mad) 3384
Non-compliance leads to dismissal under Section 86(1) RPA, even if merits exist. S. Mathiarasan VS K. Kalaimani - 2011 0 Supreme(Mad) 3384
The Apex Court has firmly shut the door on impleading ROs.
In Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal, it was held:
the contest of the election petition is designed to be confined to the candidates at the election and all others are excluded... only those may be joined as respondents... who are mentioned in Sections 82 and 86(4). S. Mathiarasan VS K. Kalaimani - 2011 0 Supreme(Mad) 3384
Michael B. Fernandes v. C.K. Jaffer Sharief reinforced:
the concept of 'proper party' is and must remain alien to an election dispute under the Act and only those may be joined as respondents to an election petition, who are mentioned in Sections 82 and 86(4) of the Act and no others. S. Mathiarasan VS K. Kalaimani - 2011 0 Supreme(Mad) 3384
B. Sundara Rami Reddy v. Election Commission of India echoed:
however desirable and expedient it may appear to be, none else shall be joined as the respondents. S. Mathiarasan VS K. Kalaimani - 2011 0 Supreme(Mad) 3384
These rulings post-date isolated instances where ROs were impleaded (e.g., as Respondent No. 5 in a 1989 nomination challenge), rendering such practices invalid. Jagannath Ramchandra Nunekar VS Genu Govind Kadam - 1988 0 Supreme(SC) 585
In one case, an RO was arrayed as Respondent No. 5 in a petition under Section 100(1)(c) RPA challenging nomination rejection. However, Supreme Court law mandates dismissal for Section 82 violation. Jagannath Ramchandra Nunekar VS Genu Govind Kadam - 1988 0 Supreme(SC) 585
Another petition referenced RO proceedings but properly avoided impleading them, focusing on improper nomination acceptance under Section 100(1)(d)(i). Madiraju Venkata Ramana Raju VS Peddireddigari Ramachandra Reddy - 2018 4 Supreme 261
Failure to adhere invites preliminary objections and summary dismissal. S. Mathiarasan VS K. Kalaimani - 2011 0 Supreme(Mad) 3384
Supporting jurisprudence affirms this position across contexts:
These cases illustrate: RO actions are challengeable indirectly, preserving RPA's rigor. Kameng Dolo VS Atum Welly - 2014 Supreme(Gau) 1013Kameng Dolo VS Atum Welly - 2014 Supreme(Gau) 728
No carve-outs exist for improper scrutiny or official corrupt practices. Writs suit pre-election stages; post-election exclusivity lies with petitions. S. Mathiarasan VS K. Kalaimani - 2011 0 Supreme(Mad) 3384
To safeguard your petition:1. Name Only Required Respondents: Stick to Section 82—returned and contesting candidates. Challenge RO decisions (e.g., Section 100(1)(d)) against them.2. Summon RO as Witness: Use court processes for examination if needed. Umed Singh Rao VS Mani Ram Godara - 1985 0 Supreme(SC) 1973. Raise Objections Early: File compliant petitions; contest party defects promptly under Section 86.4. Pre-Election Strategy: Use Article 226 writs for urgent RO issues, avoiding Article 329(b) bar. Sunita w/o Kalyanrao Kharat VS Returning Officer, The Jalna District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. - 2023 Supreme(Bom) 15095. Amend if Needed: Strike extra parties to cure defects, as permitted. Dasanglu Pul VS Er. Lupalum Kri - 2021 Supreme(Gau) 427
Election petitions demand precision. Impleading the Returning Officer risks fatal non-compliance with Section 82 RPA, as cemented by Supreme Court precedents like Jyoti Basu and Michael Fernandes. S. Mathiarasan VS K. Kalaimani - 2011 0 Supreme(Mad) 3384 By naming only mandated parties and summoning officials as witnesses, petitioners ensure their claims reach merits.
Key Takeaway: Election law prioritizes speed and candidate-centric disputes—ROs stay out of the respondent array.
For nuanced advice, consult an election law specialist. Stay informed, file right.
#ElectionLaw, #RPA1951, #ElectionPetition
The entire allegations of unfairness and favouritism during the counting were made against the returning officer. Therefore, though the Returning Officer is not a necessary party but a proper party in this Election Petition to answer and rebut the allegations made against him. ... The petitioner also made the absurd allegations that the respondent No. 1 pressurized the Returning Officer#....
Further, it was made clear in the election petition that the election petitioner reached the office of the Returning Officer as 12.30 p.m., but, by that time, the Returning Officer had left his office and returned only around 3.30 p.m. on 30.7.2009. ... He would further contend that the nomination of the first respondent/election petitioner was rightly rejected by the Returning Officer#H....
By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners have primarily challenged the appointment of Respondent No.4 – Shri. Subhash Deshmukh as Returning Officer for conducting election of Respondent No.5 – Society. ... The election as per the said election programme is scheduled for 4th February 2024 and on the same day, the results will be announced. 3. It is on the above backdrop that the present Petition#HL_EN....
By the present petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 26.06.2023 passed by the respondent no.1 - Returning Officer, rejecting the nomination form of the petitioner to contest the election of respondent no.2 – Bank, so also, the order dated 30.10.2023 passed by respondent no.5 - appellate ... The election of the JDCC Bank was due and the respondent no.1 was appointed as election Officer#HL....
But, the case of the petitioner herein is that the acceptance of the nomination of the 7th respondent by the Returning Officer is improper and as such it squarely falls within the scope of the Election Petition. 21. ... Ponnus Returning Officer, Mohinder Singh Gill v. Election Chief Commissioner and Election Commission of India v. Shivaji. a. ... It may be noticed that the petition by Kamal Sharma was filed on 6-2....
In paragraph 4 of the election petition, reference is made to the proceedings before the Returning Officer as to how the objections were rejected by him. ... The purport of assertions made in the election petition was to highlight this aspect in support of the ground for declaring the election of respondent No.1 as being void on account of improper acceptance of his nomination form by the Returning#HL_END....
Even there was no claim made before the returning officer that the postal ballots were not properly counted. ... The returning officer made elaborate verification of the counting in presence of all the candidates and their agents. The first respondent secured 18678 votes and that the petitioner secured 18447 votes. ... In this regard he referred to Rule 63 of the Election Rules. In Ex.P.19, the petitioner did not bring to the notice of the ....
provided that a count made by the returning officer is final and cannot be challenged on an election petition. ... than the respondent need not be made parties to the petition. ... The petition states that the returning officer declared that the 2nd respondent received 45,296 votes, the 3rd respondent 26,522, the 1st respondent 20,375 and ....
Respondent no.3 is the District Magistrate-cum-District Election Officer (Municipality), Patna and respondent no.4 is the Returning Officer himself. ... tribunal by means of an election petition and not be made the subject of a dispute before any Court while the election is in progress." ... Ranju Singh, the Commission notified the date of election on 17.08.2024 and respondent no....
The 1st respondent has filed an affidavit stating that he was not the returning officer for the election of a member for Ward No. 4 of the Bentota Village Committee, that the returning officer was Mr. D. T. E. A. ... In an application for a prerogative writ to have an election held under the Local Authorities Elections Ordinance set aside, both the successful candidate and the returning officer under whose responsibility t....
6. The respondent No. 1/Election petitioner has filed an affidavit stating that as the nomination paper of the applicant/returned candidate was improperly received/accepted by the Returning Officer, the Returning Officer has been made as respondent No. 2 in the Election petition for effective adjudication of the Election petition.
That in reply to the statement made in paragraph 31 of Election petition, it is stated on behalf of the respondent that the Returning Officer has accepted the nomination paper of the Respondent finding it in proper order and so far as the allegation against the Returning Officer is concerned it cannot be adjudicated in the absence of the Returning Officer or without impleading him as a party respondent. That in reply to the statement made in paragraph 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 of Election petition, it is stated on behalf of the respondent that the same are beyond the s....
This has been settled by the Apex Court long back in the case of Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal reported in AIR 1982 SC 983. But if in addition to such declaration, the election petitioner seeks a further declaration that he be declared as duly elected, all the contesting candidates including the returned candidate would have to be joined as respondents. The Election Commission or for that matter the Returning Officer need not be made respondent in an election petition.
But if in addition to such declaration, the election petitioner seeks a further declaration that he be declared as duly elected, all the contesting candidates including the returned candidate would have to be joined as respondents. This has been settled by the Apex Court long back in the case of Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal reported in AIR 1982 SC 983. The Election Commission or for that matter the Returning Officer need not be made respondent in an election petition.
Section 87 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 provides as follows: Therefore, the issue raised and to be decided in the present miscellaneous application is whether the Returning Officer is a necessary party or not in an election petition filed under the Representation of People Act, 1951 and if so, whether the Returning Officer of 27-Moirang Assembly Constituency needs to be impleaded as a respondent No. 2 in the Election Petition No. 1 of 2012 as sought by the applicant (respondent in the election petition). To understand this issue, we may refer to the relevant pr....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
