2001 (2) TMI 983 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether any corrupt practice has or has not been proved to have been committed at the election and the nature of corrupt practice? Held that - Appeal dismissed. The allegations which have been made in the election petition are allegations of corrupt practice against Cardozo besides some others. Since Cardozo was a nominated candidate, it was necessary to implead him as a party-respondent under Section 82(b) of the Act, irrespective of the fact that before the actual date of election, he had withdrawn his candidature and allegedly committed the corrupt practice after his withdrawal from the election. Thus, the answer to the question posed in the earlier part of the judgment is in the affirmative.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the election petition due to non-compliance with Section 82(b) of the Representation of People Act (RPA).
2. Interpretation of the term "candidate" under Section 79(b) of the RPA.
3. Implications of not joining a necessary party (a candidate against whom allegations of corrupt practice are made) in the election petition.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Election Petition:
The appellant filed an election petition challenging the election of respondent No. 1 based on alleged corrupt practices. The High Court dismissed the petition on the grounds of non-compliance with Section 82(b) of the RPA, as Sampatrao Chavan, a candidate who had withdrawn his candidature but was later alleged to have committed corrupt practices, was not made a party to the petition. The Supreme Court upheld this dismissal, emphasizing that the non-joinder of a necessary party under Section 82(b) mandates dismissal under Section 86(1) of the RPA.

2. Interpretation of "Candidate" under Section 79(b):
The term "candidate" as defined in Section 79(b) includes any person who has been duly nominated as a candidate at any election. The Court clarified that this definition applies even to those who have withdrawn their candidature. The appellant's contention that Sampatrao Chavan, after withdrawing his candidature, should not be considered a candidate under Section 82(b) was rejected. The Court reiterated that a candidate remains within the definition of Section 79(b) until the election process is concluded, regardless of withdrawal.

3. Implications of Not Joining a Necessary Party:
The Court highlighted that Section 82(b) requires the joinder of any candidate against whom allegations of corrupt practice are made. Since Sampatrao Chavan was a validly nominated candidate and allegations of corrupt practices were made against him, he was a necessary party to the election petition. The failure to implead him rendered the petition defective. The Court emphasized that Sections 82 and 99 serve different purposes: Section 82 pertains to the parties to be joined in the petition, while Section 99 deals with naming persons found guilty of corrupt practices after the trial. The mandatory nature of Section 82(b) leaves no room for interpretation or discretion by the Court.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court, after examining the relevant provisions of the RPA and past precedents, concluded that the election petition was rightly dismissed by the High Court due to the non-joinder of a necessary party. The appeals were dismissed, affirming the importance of strict compliance with the procedural requirements of the RPA to ensure the integrity and purity of the election process.