Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from an election petition filed by the appellant challenging the election of the respondent to the Rajya Sabha from Goa in 1999, primarily on grounds of corrupt practices. The appellant contended that the respondent had committed corrupt practices, specifically offering gratification to certain MLAs to secure their votes. The respondent raised a preliminary objection, asserting that the election petition was liable to be dismissed for non-compliance with section 82 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which mandates that any candidate against whom allegations of corrupt practices are made must be joined as a party-respondent. The High Court upheld this objection and dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court, upon appeal, examined whether the provisions of section 82(b) applied to a candidate who had withdrawn from the election. The court noted that the respondent, Luis Alex Cardozo, had withdrawn his nomination prior to the election but was still considered a candidate under section 79(b) of the Act, which defines a candidate as one who has been duly nominated. The court referenced previous judgments, emphasizing that a candidate remains a candidate for the purposes of the Act even after withdrawal, particularly when allegations of corrupt practices are made. The court concluded that the allegations against Cardozo required his impleadment as a party-respondent, and thus the election petition was rightly dismissed for non-compliance with section 82(b). The appeal was dismissed, with parties bearing their own costs.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Corrupt Practices - Applicability of Section 82(b) - Section 82(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 - The court held that a candidate who has withdrawn from the election but is alleged to have committed corrupt practices must still be impleaded as a party-respondent in the election petition, as the definition of 'candidate' includes those who have been duly nominated, irrespective of their withdrawal. (Paras 1-4) B) Election Law - Definition of Candidate - Section 79(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 - The court clarified that a person who has been duly nominated remains a candidate for the purposes of the Act even after withdrawal, and allegations of corrupt practices against such a person necessitate their inclusion in the election petition. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the provisions of section 82(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 apply to a candidate who allegedly commits a corrupt practice after withdrawing his candidature.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision to dismiss the election petition for non-compliance with section 82(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Law Points
- Election petition
- corrupt practices
- candidate definition
- party-respondent requirement
- withdrawal of candidature
