JYOTI BASU & OTHERS. versus DEBI GHOSAL & OTHERS.

JYOTI BASU & OTHERS.

DEBI GHOSAL & OTHERS.

February 26, 1982

(R.S. PATHAK AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.]

Representation of the Pepople Act 1951, Ss. 82 and 86 (4) Election Petition-Parties to-Who are-Corrupt practice alleged against person who is not candi-date-Such person whether can be impleaded as respondent.

Election Law-Right to elect-Neither fundamtntal right nor Common Law right-Statutory right subject to statutory limitations.

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 Or. Ir. JO-Concept of'proper parties'-Applicability of to election petitions.

The Representation of the People Act 1951, by Section 81 prescribes who may present an election petition. It may be by any candidate at such election, by any elec1or of the cons.tituency, and by none ~Jse. Section 82 dause (a) provides that the retitioner in an election petition shall join as respondents to the petition the returned candidates if the relief claimed is confined to di~claration that the election of all or any of . the returned candidates is void and all the contesting candidates if further declaration is sought that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected. ·Clause (b) of the section requires the petitioner to join as respondents any other candidate against whom allegations of any corrupt practice are made in the petition. Section 86 (4) enables any candi· date not already respondent to be joined as respondent.

The first appeltant in the appeal is the Chief Minister and appellants 2 and 3 State Ministers. They had been impleaded by the first respondent as parties to an election petition filed by him in the High Ccurt qu£stioni11g the election of the second respondent to the House of the People. It was averred in the election peti· tion that the Chief Ministers and the State ministers who Were impleaded as parties to the election petition had colluded and conspired with the returned candidate to commit 'various alleged corrupt practices. The Chief Minister and th~ other Ministers denied the commission of the various alleged corrupt practices and claimed that the election petitioner was not entitled to implead them as parties to the election petition, as they were not candidates at the election. They filed an application before tQ.e High Court to strike out their names from the array of parties in the election petition. It was dismissed on the ground that the ·appel-lants were proper parties to the election petitiqn and therefore their names could pot be st~~ O"?t of the array of parties\ · · . '" , , . , ..

JYOTI BASU V. DEBI GHOSAL

In the appeal to this Court, it was contended on behalf of the appellants that the concept of proper p8.rty was not relevant in election law and that only those persons could be implcaded as parties who were expressly directed to be so implcaded by the Representation of the People Act 1951, and that they were entitled to be struck out from the array of parties. On behalf of the first resPOn, dent it was submitted that the appellants were proper parties to the electiori petition and their presence was necessary for coi,n.plete, final and expeditiouS decision on the questions involved in the action.

Allowing the Appeal,

HELD : I. No one can be joined as party to an election petition other· wise than as provide by Section 82 and 86 (4) of the Representation of the people Act 1951. person who is not candidate may not be joined as respondent to the election petition. [331 C-D]

In the instant case the names of the appeIJants and the 7th ·respondent in· the appeal are directed to be struck out from the array of parties in the election petition. [331 DJ

2. right to elect, fundamental though it is to democracy, is, anomalously 1 ·

neither fundamental right nor Common Law Ri~bt. It is statutory right. So is the right to be elected, and the right to dispute an election. Outside of sta1ute, there is no right to elect, no right to be elected, and no right to dispute an election. Statutory creations they are, and therefore, subject to statutory limitation. An Election petition is not an action at Cornmoo Law, nor in equity. It is statutory proceeding to which 1leither the Common Law nor the principles of Equity apply but only those rules which. the statute makes and applies. It is special jurisdiction, and special jurisdiction has always to be exercised in accordance with the statute creating it. Concepts familiar to Common Law and Equity must remain strangers to Election Law unless statutorily embodied. Court has no right to resort to them on considerations of alleged pol.icy because policy io such matters, as those, relating to the trial of election disputes, is what the statute lays down. In the trial of election disputes, Court is put in stl.'aight jacket. [326 F-H; 327 A-BJ

3. The ·contest of the election petition is designed to be confined to the the candidates. at the ele-;;.tion. All others are excluded. The ring is c!c.sed to all except the petitioner and the candidates at the election. Such is the design of the statute. [328 C]

4. While clause (b) of section 82 obliges the petitioner in an election petition to join as respondent any candidate against whom allegations of any corrupt practice are made in the pet_ition, it does not obJige the petitioner to join as respondent any other person against whom allegations of any corrupt practice are made. While any candidate not already respondent may seek and, if he so seeks, is entitled to be joined as respondent undor section 86 (4), any other person cannot, under that provision seek to be joined as respondent, even if allegations of any corrupt practice are made against him. [328 A-CJ

it982J 3 s.c.ii.

SUPREME c6Uit REPORTS

5. The concept of •proper parties' is and niust remain alien to an election dispute under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Only those may be joined as· respondents to an election petition who are mentioned in section 82 and section 86 (4) and no others, However desirable and expedient it may appear to be, none else shall be joined as respondents. [328 DJ

6. The provisions' of the Civil Procedure Code cannot be invoked to permit that which the Representation of the People Act 1951 does not permit. The Civil Procedure Code applies subject to the provisions of the Repres~tation of the People Act 1951 and any rules made thereunder. Section 87 (1) expressly says so. When the Act enjoins the penalty of dismissal of the petition for non-joinder of party the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code cannot be used as curative means to save the petition. [328 F-H; 329 A-Cl

Mohan Raj v. Su7'ndra Kumar Taparia & Ors. [1961] I SCR and .R. Venkateswara Rao & Anr. v. Bekkam Narasimha Reddi & Ors. [1969) I SCR 679, referred to.

7: Parliament has expressly provided that an opportunity should be given to person who· is not candidate to show cause against being 'named' as one guilty of corrupt practice. Parliament, however, has not thought fit to expressly provide for bis being joined-as party to the election petition either by the election.petitioner or at the instance of the very person against whom the allega· tiona of corrupt practice are made. The right given to the latter is limited to show cause against being 'named' and that right opens up for exercise when, at the end of the election petition notice is given to him to show cause why he should 9not be 'named• The right does not extend to participation at all stages and in all matters, right which he would ha·ve if he is joined as 'party' at the com-mencement. [329 E-G] ·

8 (i) The election petitioner cannot by joining as respondent person who is not candidate at the election subject him to prolonged triaJ of an election petition with all its intricacies and ramificatio_ns. [329-Gj

(ii) Mischievous minded persons may harass public personages like the Prime Minister of the country, the Chief Minister· of State or political leader of national dimension by impleading him as party to election petitions. All that would be necessary is seemingly plausible allegation, casually or spitefulJy made, with but facade of truth. To permit such public personage to be impleaded as party to an election petition on the basis of mere allegation, without even prima facie proof an allegation which may ultimately be found to be unfounded, can c~use needless vexation to sush pe°rsonage and prevent him from the effective discharge of his public duties. It would be against the public interest to do so. The ultimate award o.f co;,ts would be no panacea in such cases, since the Public mischi.ef cannot be repaired. Public Policy and legislative wis-dooi both p~iot to an interpretation that the provisions of the Representation of the PeoJ)le Act 1951 does not permit the joining, at parties of persons other than those mention~ in sections 82 and 86 (4). [329 H; 330 A-DJ

. JYOTI BASU v. DEBI GHOSAL (Chinnappa Reddy,j.)

9 (i) The legislative provisions contained in section 99 enables the Court,. . towards the end of the trial of an election petition,_ to issue J?.Otice to person not party to the proceedings to show cause why he should not be rnamed' is sufficient clarificatiOn of the.legislative intent ihat such person may not be permit· ted to be joined as party to the election petition. (330 E-F]

9 (ii) If person who 1s not candidate but against whom allegations of any corrupt practice are made is joined as party he would also be entitled to 'recriminate' under section 97. Suctt construction of the statute would throw the doors ·of an election wide open and convert the petition into 'free for all' fight. The necessary consequence would be an unending, disorderly election dispute with no hope of achieving the goal contemplated by sec. 86 (6) of the Act that the trial of the election petition should be concluded in six months.

(330 H; 331 A-BJ

CIVIL APPELLA1E JURISD1c:r10N : Civil Appeal No. 1553 of 1980.

Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 3rd July, 1980 of the Calcutta High Court in Election Petition Case No. 1 of 1980.

Somnath Chatterjee, Rathin Das and Aninda Mitter· for the Appellants.

Sidhartha Shankar Ray, R.K. Lala and T. V.S.N. Chari fot Respondent No. I.

The Judgmeat of the Court was delivered by

CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. The first appellant, Jyoti llasu, is the Chief Minister and appellants two and three Budhadeb Bhattacharya and Hashim Abdul Halim, are two Ministers of the Government of West Bengal. They .have been impleaded by the first respondent as parties to an election petition filed by him questioning the election of the second respondent to the House of the People from the 19-Barrackpore Parliamentary Constituency in the mid-term Parlia-mentary election held in January, 1980. There were five candidates' who sought election from the .Constituency. Mod. Ismail, the first respondent, whose candidature was sponsored by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) was, elected securing 2,66,698 votes as against Debi Ghosal, candidate sponsored by the Indian National Congress led by Smt. Indira Gandhi who secured 1,62, 770 votes. The other candidates Ramjit Ram, Robi Shankar Pandey and Bejoy Narayan Mishra secured 25, 734, 12,271 and 2, 763 votes respectively. The first respondent fited an election petition in the High Court of ' '

'[, ][..... ]"

Calcutta questioning the election of the second respondent Mohd. Ismail on various grounds. He impleaded the returned candidate as the first respoudent, and tbe other three unsuccessful candidates respondents 2, 3 and 4 to the election petition. Besides the candi-_ dates at the election, he impleaded several others as respondents. ·The District Magistrate and Returning Officer was impleaded as the fifth respondent, Buddhadeb Bhattachar}a, the Minister for Informa-tion and Publicity, Government of West Bengal as the sixth res-pondent. Jyoti Basu, the Chief Minister as the seventh respondent, Md. Amin, the Minister of the Transport Branch of the Home Department as the eighth respondent, Hashim Abdul Halim, the· Minister of the Legislative and the Judicial Department as the ninth respondent and the Electoral Registration Officer as the tenth res-pondent. It was averred in the election petition that the Chief Minister and the other Ministers of the Government of West Bengal who were im pleaded as parties to the election petition had colluded and conspired with the returned candidate to commit various alleged · corrupt practices. Apart from denying the commission of the various alleged corrupt practices, the Chief Minister and the other Ministers claimed in their written statements that the election petiti~­ner was not entitled to implead them as parties to the election peti-tion. They claimed that as they were not candidates at the election they could not be impleaded as parties to the election petition. The Chief Minister and two of the other Ministers, Hashim Abdul Halim and and Buddhadeb Bhattacharya file\! an application before the High Court of Calcutta to strike out ··their names from the array of parties in the elcctign petition. The application was dismissed by the Calcutta High Court on the ground that the appli-cants (appellants) were proper parties to the election petition and, therefore, their names should not be struck out of the array of parties. The appellants have preferred this appeal after obtaining special leave of this Court under Art. 136 of the Constitution.

Sbri Somnath Chatterjee, learned counsel for the appellant t submitted that the concept of proper party was not relevant in elec-tion law and that only those persons could be impleaded as parties who were expressly directed to be so impleaded by the Representa-tion of the People Act, 1951. He claimed that in any case such persons were entitled to be struck out from the array of parties. On the other hand Shri Sidhartha Shankar Ray, and Shri R.K. Lala, learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the appellan.\s were proper parties to the election petition and their presence was

necessary for complete, final and expeditious decision on the ques-tions involved in the action.

To properly appreciate the rival contentions it i$ ·necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Constitution of India and the two Representation of the People Acts of 1950 and 1951.

First the Constitution. Part lXV deals with elections. Art. 324 vests in the l'le•:tiqn Commission the superintendence, .direction and control of the preparation of the Electoral rolls and the conduct of all elections to Parliament and to the Legislatures of the States. Art. 325 provides that there shall be one general electoral roll for every territorial constituency,.and that no person shall be ineligible for inclusion in such rolls on grounds only of religion, caste, sex or any of them. Art. 326 provides that election to the House of the People and to the Legislative Assemblies of States shall be on the basis of adult franchise. Art. 327 enables Parliament to make laws with respect to all matters relating to elections to either House of Parliament or to the Houses of the Legislature of State. Art. 328 enables the Legh;lature of State, if Parliament has not made such legislation, to make laws with respect to all matters relating to elec-tions to the Houses of the Legislature of the State. Art. 329 bars interference by Courts in electoral matters and clause (b), in parti-cular, provides that no election to either House of Parliament or to the House or either House of the Legislature of State shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority. and in such manner as may be provided for by or under any law made by the appropriate legislature.

Next, the Representation of People Act, 1950. This Act provides for the delimitation of the Constituencies for the purpose of elections to the House of the people .and the legislatures of States, the qualification of voters at such elections,. the preparation of electoral rolls and other matters connected therewith.

Last, the Representation of the People Act of 1951, Part VI of the Act deals with "Disputes regarding elections". Sec. 79 defines various terms and expressions used in the Parts VI and VII. Clause (b) defines 'candidate' as meaning "a person who has been or claims to have been duly nominated as candidate at any elec-tion, and any such person shall be deemed to have been candidate as from the time when, with the election in prospect, he began to

(i982j 3 S.C.R.

hold himself out as prospective candidate". Sec. 80 imposes statutory ban on an election being called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with the provisions of Part VI of the, Act. Sec. 80-A vests in the High Court, the jurisdic-tion to try an election petition. Sec. 81 provides for the presenta-tion of an election petition on one or more of the grounds specified in Sec. 100 (I) and Sec. IOI by any candidate at such election or any elector who was entitled to vote at the election. Sec. 82 is entitled "Parties to the petition" and is as follows :

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

(a) Where the petitioner, in addition to claiming declaration that the election of all or any of the returned candidate is void claims further declara· tion that he himself or any other candidate 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".

Sec. 83 prescribes the contents of the petition. 1 Sec. 84 pro-vides that petitioner may, in addition to clair;ning declaration that the election of the returned ·candidate is void, claim further declaration that he himself or any other candidate bas been duly elected. Sec. 86 deals with trial of ~Iection petition.s. Sub-Sec. (4) provides for an application by candidate who is not already res-pondent to be joined as respondent. It is in these terms:

"(4) Any candidate not already respondent shall, npon application made by him to the High Court within fourteen days from the date of commencement of the trial and subject to any order as to security for costs which may be made by the High Court, be entitled to be joined as respondent".

Sec. 87 is concerned with the procedure before the High Court and 'it is as follows:

"87 (I) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any rules made thereunder, every election petition shall be tried by the High Court, as nearly as may be, in accor-with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to the trial of suits;

Provided that the High Court shall have the dis-cretion to refuse, for reasons to be. recorded in writing, to examine any witness or witnesses if · it is of the opinion that the evidence of such witness or witn"esses is not material for the decision of the peti-tion or that the p11rty tendering such witness or witnesses is doing so on frivolous grounds or with view to delay. the proceedings.

(2) The provisitf'ns of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, shait, subject to Ille provisions of this Act, be deemed to apply in all respects to the trial of an election petition".

Sec. 90 enables the returned candidate or any other party to 'recri-minate' in cases where in the election petition declaration that candidate other than the returned candidate has been elected is 0claimed. High Court at the conclusion of the trial Sec. 98 prescribes the orders that may of an election petition. be made by the It provides that the High Court shall make an order ismlssing the election petition or declaring the election of all or any of the returned candidates to· be void and the petitioner or any other candidate to have been duly elected. Sec. 99, enables the High Court to make, at the time of making order under Sec. 98, an order recording finding whether any corrupt practice h11s or has not been proved to have been committed at the election, and the nature of corrupt practice; and the names of all persons, if any, who have been poved at the trial to have been guilty of corrupt practice and the nature of that practice. The proviso to Sec. 99 (I), however, prescribes that no person who is not party to the petition shall be named in t,he order unless he had been given notice to ·appear before the High Court to show cause why he should not be so llamed and he had also been given an opportunity to cross examine any witness who had-already been examined by the High. Court and had given · evidence against him and an opportunity of calling evidence in his

. ' ~-[1]ilt~ '. :~SJ Ji::.-·

,.-~:, __ , ~-

(J9szj J S.C.R.

SUPREME ·COURT REPORTS

defence and of being heard. '[1]Sec. 100 enumerates the grounds on which an election may be declared void. The High Court, it is said, among other grounds, shall declare the election of returned candi-date void .in cases where corrupt practices are proved, where suph corrupt practice has been committed by returned candidate or his election agent or by any other person with the consent of the returned candidate or his election agent. Where the corrupt prac-tice has been committed in the interests of the returned candidate by an agent other than his election agent, the result of the election in so far as it concerns the returned candidate must also be shown to have heeh materially affected. Sec. IOI prescribes the grounds for which candidate, other than the returned candidate may be declared to have been elected. Sec. 110 provides for the procedure when an application for withdrawal of an election petition is made to the Court. Sec. 110 (3) (c) says that person who might himself have been petitioner may apply fo the Court to he substituted as petitioner in place of the {>arty withdrawing. Sec. 112 (3) pro-vides for the continuance of the election petition on the death of the · sole petitioner in an election petition or of tac survivor of several petitioners, by any person who might himself haYe been petitioner and who applies for substitution within the stipulat~d period.

The nature of the right to elect, the right to be elected and the right to dispute an election and the scheme of the Constitutional and statutory provisions in relation to these rights have been explained by the Court in N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency & Ors.,(') and Jagan Nath v. Jaswant Singh.(') We proceed to state what we have gleaned from what has been said, so much as necessary for this case. I .

right to elect, fundamental though it is to democracy, is, anomalously enough, nei~her fundamental right nor Common , Law Right.· I It is·pure and simple, statutory right. So is the right to be elected. So is the right to dispute_!ln election. Outside of statute, there is no right to elect, no right to be elected and no right to dispute an election. Statutory creations they are, and therefore, subject to statutory limitation. An Election petition is not an action at Common Law, nor in equity. It is statutory proceeding to which neither the Common Law nor the principles of Equity apply but

only those rules which the statute makes and applies. It is special jurisdiction, and special jurisdiction has always to be exercised in accordance with the statutory creating it. Concepts familiar to Common Law and Equity must remain strangers to Election Law unless statutorily embodied. Court has no right to resort to them on considerations of alleged policy because policy in such matters as those, relating to the trial of election disputes, is what the statute lays down. In the trial of election disputes, Court is put in straight jacket. Thus the entire ./ elecr ion process commencing from the issuance of the notification calling upon constitutuency to elect member or members right up to the final resolution of the dispute, if any, concerning the . election is regulated by the Representation of the People Act, 1951, different stages of the process being dealt with by different provisions of the Act. There can be no election to Parliament or the State Legislature except as provided by the Representation of the People Act 195 l and again, no such election may be questioned except in the manner provided by the Representation of the People Act. So the Representation of the People Act has been held to be com-plete and self contained code within which must be found any rights claimed in relation to an election or an election .dispute. We are concerned with an election dispute . ..:fhe question is who are parties to an election dispute and who may_ be impleaded as parties to an election petition. We have already referred to the Scheme of the Act. We have noticed the necessity to rid ourselves of notions based on Common Law or Equity. We see that we must seek an answer to the question within the four corners of the statute. What dqes the Act say?

Sec. 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. Sec. 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 declaration that the election of all or any of the returned candidates is void and all ·the contesting candidates if further declaration is sought that he him~elf or any other can-didate has been duly elected. Clause (b) of Sec. 82 requires the petitioner to join as respondent any other candidate against whom allegations of any corrupt practice are made in the petition. Sec. 86 (4) enables any candidate not already respondent to be joined as respondent, There is 110 other provision dealinll wit!\

'' -··.

(1982) 3 S.C,R. •. ·---~--- ---~~---:

. question as to who may be joined as respondents .. It is significant that while clause (b) of Sec. 82 obliges 'the· petitioner to joiri as a· respondent any candidate.against whom 'allegations of any corrupt practice are made in the petition, it does not oblige· the.petitioner to join as respondent any other person against 'whom allegations of any corrupt practice are made. ' It is equally significant that while · any candidat.e not already respondent may seek and, if he so seeks, is entitled to. be joined as respondent under Sec.· 86 (4), any other. person cannot; under .that provision seek to be joined as respondent, even if allegations of any corrupt practice are made. agains't him.' It is dear thai the contest of the election petition is designed t~. be confined to the candidates at the election. All •.. others are excluded: The ring is closed to. all except the petitioner and the candidates . at · the election.. If such is the design ·of the statute, how can the notion of 'proper parties' enter th.e picture at all ? ·We think thai the: con-cept of 'proper parties' is and must remain alien to an election ·'dis·· pute under the Represeiiiation of the People· Act,. J951 ,· -· Only ·those may be joined as respondents to' an· election petition who ·are men-tioned. in Sec. 82 an·d Sec. 86 (4) and no others. However desirable · and expedient it may appear to lie, none else shall be joined._.as .. ·. ' --respondents. ' .

" It is said, the Civil Procedure· Code . applies lo the trial, of election petitions and so proper parties whose presenco may be necessary in order to enable the Court' 'effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved' may' be joined as respondents to the petitions .. The questions is not whether' the Civil Procedure Code applies because it undoubtedly does, but only 'as far as may be' and subject to the provisions of the Representa· tion of the People Act, 1951 and the. rules made _thereunder. Sec. 87 (I) exepressly says so. The question is whether . the provi-sions .;-f the Civil Procedure Code can be invoked to permit that which ·the Representation of the People Act does not .. Quite obviously the provisions of the Code cannof be.~so invoked .. • In Mohan Raj 1' Surendra Kuma~ Taparia & Ors.,([1]) _this Court held ihat the undoubted power of the Court (i.e. the Election Court) to permit an amendment of the petition i:anno't be uied to stiike ·out allegations agairisi candidate not joined as ll respondent so as to '. save the election petition from dismissal for non·joinder of necessary ·

(I) (1969].l SCR 630 .•

L---~-~~---~-------

·.\ . _\ . -JYOTI BA_SU v:_DEEl GHOSAL (Chinmppa Reddy, J.) ---329 --

parties. It. was said, uThe Court can order an·_ amendment and e'l'en strike out party who is not necessary. Bui, where the Act niakes person necessary _party _and -provides that the petition shall be dismissed_ if such party is not joined, the-_ power of ame~ddient or to strike -out parties_ cannot be used at all. The -Civil Procedure Co-de appiies subj~ct to the provisions ~Ube Repre' s~ntation of th'e Pe~ple Act and any ruies made ihereunder: When tlie Act enjoins_tlie penalty of dismissal of the petition for non-joinder of party the "provisions of 'ihe Civil Procedure Code cannot be used asacurative means tci sa~e the petition."dAgain, in K.' VenkatesH·ara _Rao &. Anr.' v. Bekkam Narasimha -Reddi and _-Ors.,(1) it was o.bserVed :

"With regard . to the additi~n ~f parties - which - is possible in the case of a· suit under tho· provisions of 0.1.r. 10 subject to the added party right •_to contend that the suit a_s against· l.im -was -barred by limitation_ when he was added, no addition of parties is possible in the case of an election petition · except under the -provi-. sions __ of Sub-sec. (4) of Section 86".. -

The matter may be looked at froni another angle. · The Parliament has expressly provided that an ·opportunity- should be given to person who is not candidate "to -show cause against being 'named'. as _one guilty of corrupt -practice. -Parliament however, has not thought fit to expressly provide for his being joined as party to the election petition either by the election-petitioner or·- at -the instance of the very person against _whom the· allegations or' a_ corrupt prac'.ice are 'made. The right given to the latter is limited to show cause &gainst 'named' and that right opens up for exercise when, -ai the end of the trial of the e'iection petition notice is given to him to show_catise why he should not be 'named'. The right does not extend to participation at all stages and in all matters, right which he would have. if he is· joined as party at the commencement. Conversaly the election petitioner cannot by joini~g as a· respondent person who is not candidate at the electior. subject him ·to prolonged trial of aQ election petition with all its intricacies and ramifications.'> One· may· well imagine h~w ni'ischievous minded persons may harass public per:sonages like the Prime MinisJer of,

(I) [1977] I SCR 679.

(1982) 3 S.C.R.

the country, the Chief Miilister of State or political leader of_ national dimension by_· impleading :him as 'a party to election petitions, all the country over, . All that would be_ necessary is · seemingly · · plausible . allegation, casually . ·or · · spitefully made.- with"_ but facade of tnith. Evecyone is familiar with . S'!Ch allegations. To permit such _.a. public 'Personage . to,. be impleaded as party to an electiciu. petiti6n on the basis ~fa mere aiiegation, "without ,even prime facie proof,~ an' allegation which · "'may ultimately be found 10 be unfounded; can cause needless · vexa~ .. tion to such personage and prevent him from the effective discharge of his public duties .. It would be against the public" interest to do so . . The ultimate award of costs would be n"o panacea in such cases, since the public mischief cannot be repaired. That is why · public Policy and legislative wisdom both seem to_ point to an interpretation of the provisions of the Representation of the People Act which does not permit the joining,~. parties,•of persons other than those men-tioned in, Sections 82 and 86 (4). It is not as i(a person guilty of corrupt practice can get away with· it. Where at the concluding stage of the trial of an election. petition, after evidence has been given, the Court finds that there is sufficient ·material to hold . person guilty of corrupt practice, the Court may then issue notice to him to show cause under Sec. 99 and proceed with further action • . 1n· our view the legislative provision contained in Sec. 99 which . enables the Court, towards the end of tht> trial of an election petition, to issue notice to person not party to the proceeding to sh9w cause why he should not be 'named' is sufficient clarification of the . legislative intent that such person may not be permitied to be joined· as party to the election petit!on:

· There is yet another view-point.· When in an election petition _in addition to the declaration that the election of the returned can-date is void further declaration is sought that any candidate other than the returned candidate has been duly elected, sec. 97 enables the returned candidate or any other party to 'recriminate' le. to give ..... evidence to· prove that the e\ectia"n of such candidate would have . beell ~oid if he had been returned candidate and petition had been presented to question his election. If person who is· not candidate but against whom allegations · of any c·orrupt practice are made is joined as party to the petition then, by virtue of his posi-H tion as party, he would also be entitled to 'recriminate' under sec. 97. ·Surely such construction of the statute would. throw the_ !loors of an election petiti~n wide open and convert the petition into

'free for all' fight. necessary consequence would be an unending, disorderly election dispute with no hope of achieving the goal contemplated by Sec .. 86 (6) of the Act that the trial of the election petition should be concluded in six months. It is just as well to remember that 'corrupt practice' as at present defined by Sec. 123 of the Act is not confined to the giving of bribe but extends to the taking of bribe too and, therefore, the number of persons who may be alleged to be guilty of corrupt practice may indeed be very large, with the consequence that all of them may possibly be joined as respondents.

In view of the foregoing discussion we are of the opmton that no one may be joined as party to aii election petition otherwise than as provided by Sections 82 and 86 ( 4) of the Act. It follows that person who is not candidlije may not be joined as res-pondent to the election petition. The appeal is therefore, allowed wirh costs and the names of the appellants and the seventh· respon-dent in the appeal are directed to be struck out from the array of parties in the election petition. We may mention that in arriving at our conclusion we have also considered the followi~g decisions cited before us: S.B. Adityen .& Anr. v. S. Kandaswam{& Ors.,(') Dwijendra Lal Sen (Jupta v. H~rekrishna Koner,([2]) H.R. Gokhale v. Bharucha Noshir C. & Ors., ([8]) and S. Iqbal Singh v. S. Gurdas Singh / Badal & Ors.([4])

.N.V.K.

Appeal allowed

(1) AIR 1958 Mad. 171. (2),A.l.R. 1963 Cat. 218. (3) A.l.R. 1969 Bom. 177. (4) A.l.R. 1973 P & 163.