Case Note & Summary
This appeal arose from an election petition filed by two electors challenging the election of Brij Bhushan Saran to the U.P. Legislative Assembly in the 1962 general elections. B and R were candidates of the same party. R withdrew his candidature within the time fixed under Section 37 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. B was declared elected. The petitioners alleged that after withdrawal, R threatened an elector to secure votes for B, which constituted a corrupt practice under Section 123(2) read with proviso (a)(i) of the Act. The Election Tribunal held that the alleged threat amounted to corrupt practice, that it was committed by R, and that R was a necessary party to the petition under Section 82(b). Since the petitioners failed to join R as a respondent, the Tribunal dismissed the petition. The High Court confirmed this decision on appeal. Before the Supreme Court, the appellants advanced two main contentions: first, that there was no allegation of corrupt practice against R but only against B, and second, that even if there was any allegation against R, he could not be regarded as 'any other candidate' within the meaning of Section 82(b) because he had withdrawn his candidature under Section 37. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. On the first point, the Court held that the primary allegation was indeed against R though B was also made vicariously liable. On the second and more substantial point, the Court interpreted the definition of 'candidate' in Section 79(b) and the scheme of the Act. It held that a person who has withdrawn his candidature under Section 37 continues to be a 'candidate' for the purposes of the Act, including Section 82(b). If a corrupt practice is alleged against such a withdrawn candidate, whether committed before or after withdrawal, he must be impleaded as a necessary party. The Court reasoned that there was no basis to exclude withdrawn candidates from the purview of Section 82(b) simply because they are no longer contesting the election, as the provision is designed to ensure that all persons against whom corrupt practices are alleged are brought before the tribunal. Consequently, the non-joinder of R was fatal to the election petition, and the judgments of the lower forums were upheld. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Corrupt Practice - Necessary Party - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Sections 82(b), 123(2), 79(b), 37 - An election petition was filed by two electors seeking to set aside the election of the returned candidate on the ground of corrupt practice. The primary allegation was that another candidate who had withdrawn his candidature under Section 37 committed corrupt practice by threatening an elector to vote for the returned candidate. The Tribunal held that the withdrawn candidate was a necessary party under Section 82(b) and dismissed the petition for non-joinder. The Supreme Court upheld this view, holding that the withdrawn candidate continued to be a 'candidate' as defined in Section 79(b) even after withdrawal, and therefore any allegation of corrupt practice against him made him a necessary party under Section 82(b). (Paras - Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a candidate who has withdrawn his candidature under Section 37 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 falls within the meaning of 'any other candidate' under Section 82(b) and is a necessary party to an election petition when corrupt practice is alleged against him
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. The Supreme Court held that R continued to be a candidate under Section 79(b) even after withdrawal and was a necessary party under Section 82(b). Non-joinder rendered the petition liable to dismissal.
Law Points
- A candidate who has withdrawn his candidature under Section 37 of the Representation of the People Act
- 1951 continues to be a 'candidate' within the meaning of Section 79(b)
- and if any corrupt practice is alleged against him
- he is a necessary party to an election petition under Section 82(b)
