Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8919    OF 2012 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 24716 of 2011]

Ajay Maken    …. Appellant

 Versus

Adesh Kumar Gupta & Another ….Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Chelameswar, J.

1.  Leave granted

2.  The appellant herein was declared elected to the 15th Lok Sabha  

from No.4 New Delhi Lok Sabha Constituency in the election held in the  

year 2009.   

3.  Challenging the election of the appellant herein, a voter of the  

said constituency, filed an election petition No.20 of 2009 in the Delhi  

High Court.   The challenge is on the ground of commission of corrupt

Page 2

practices  falling  under  section  123(1),(2),(5),(6),(7)  read  with  section  

127(a)  of  the  Representation  of  the  People  Act,  1951  (hereinafter  

referred to as “the Act”).  The election petitioner chose to implead only  

the Returning Officer of the No.4 New Delhi Parliamentary Constituency  

and the appellant herein as respondents to the election petition.   

4. The appellant herein filed Interlocutory Application No. 13851 of  

2009 invoking Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil  Procedure, 1908  

(hereinafter referred to as “the CPC”) praying that the election petition  

be dismissed in compliance with the mandate contained in section 86 of  

the  Act,  which  stipulates  “the  High  Court  shall  dismiss  an  election  

petition  which  does  not  comply  with  the  provisions  of  section  81  or  

section  82 or  section  117”.   The said  I.A.,  was dismissed by an order  

dated 30-05-2011.  Hence, the Appeal.

5. The substance of the objections raised by the appellant herein in  

the abovementioned interlocutory application is that the election petition  

filed by  the  2nd respondent  herein  is  liable  to  be  dismissed  on  three  

counts:

Firstly, on the ground of non-compliance with Section 81(3);

2

Page 3

Secondly, that the election petition does not reveal a complete cause of  action  as  it  does  not  contain  all  the  material  facts  necessary  to  constitute to be the cause of action; and

Thirdly, that one Vijay Goel who was also a candidate in the said election  is also a necessary party as per the provisions of section 82 of the Act  but not impleaded as the respondent.

6. At  the  outset  I  must  mention  that  though  the  2nd of  the  

abovementioned objections was  pleaded vaguely  in  the abovementioned  

interlocutory application, it does not appear to have been pressed before  

the High Court and certainly not argued before us. So I shall confine our  

scrutiny  to  the  correctness  of  the  judgment  in  appeal  so  far  as  the  

objections Nos.1 and 3 of the appellant are concerned.  

7. The High Court summarised the contours of the 1st objection at  

para 3 of the Judgment as follows:

(i) “Not  all  pages  and  documents  furnished  to  the  second  respondent, along with copies of the petition, contained  signatures of the petitioner;

(ii) Many  portions  of  the  documents  filed  with  the  petition  were missing;

(iii) Copies  of  several  pages  of  annexures  (to  the  petition)  furnished  to  the  second  respondent  were  dim  or  illegible;

(iv)  The election petition was not properly verified;

(v) The verification clause in the copy furnished to the second  respondent  did  not  contain  signatures  of  the  petitioner.”

8. The relevant portion of the pleadings in this regard are to be found  

at paras 4 & 5 of the Interlocutory Application as follows: 3

Page 4

“4.  That  the  petitioner  has  filed  the  election  petition  in  contravention of various provisions of law and the main petition  placed before this Hon'ble Court for trial is not completely  signed and verified on each and every page of the petition and  attested by the petitioner as required by law. 5.  That  there  are  number  of  pages  of  the  petition  and  documents annexed with the petition which are either not at all  signed  by  the  petitioner  and  even  none  of  the  document/annexure has been verified under the signature of the  petitioner as required by law.

The  copy of the petition as supplied to the respondent No.2  along with Annexures is annexed herewith as Annexure-‘A’.

On scrutiny of the above referred copy of the petition and  inspection of the court record, the applicant/Respondent No.2  has  found  the  following  deficiencies  which  are  fatal  to  the  petition. (i) None of the pages except the last two pages of the petition  

i.e. Page no.36 & 37 are signed by the petitioner. (ii) Affidavit in support is not as per Delhi High Court Rules and  

verification of the affidavit is not signed by the petitioner. (iii) Para'2' of the affidavit at page No.38, is not legible and does  

not contain the averments similar to the affidavit filed on  record.

(iv) Annexures from page No.40 to Page No.79 are neither signed  nor verified by the petitioner as required by law.

(v) Page No. 80 to 81 are just illegible initialled by some person  but those pages are also not verified.

(vi) Page No.  82 to 98.  are not properly  paginated,  nor signed  verified or even initialled by the petitioner.

(vii)Page No.99 to 102 are not signed, initialled or verified by the  petitioner as per law.

(viii) Page No.  103 to  113,  are not  signed,  initialled  or  verified by the petitioner as per law.

(ix) Page No. 114 to 117, are not signed, initialled or verified by  the petitioner as per law.

(x) Page No. 118 to 120, is not signed, initialled or verified by the  petitioner as per law, and even not the same as filed.

(xi) Page No. 121 to 133, completely illegal. (xii) Page  no.  134  Blurred,  not  get  printed  by  the  

Respondent No.2 not signed or verified as per the law. (xiii) Page  No.  135  illegible  and  not  same  as  per  the  

petition on board. (xiv) Page No. 138 to 139 are illegible, and not same as  

per the petition on board.

4

Page 5

(xv) Page No. 144 to 145, page No. 150 to 151, page No.  152 to 280 are illegible, and not same as per the petition on  board.

(xvi) Page Nos.  281 to  283 are  not  the same as  filed  along with main period, not signed or verified by the Petition  as per law.

(xvii) Page No. 284 to 287 are illegible, just initialled by  some  person  as  true  copy  but  not  the  same  as  filed  by  petitioner with main petition.

(xviii) Page No. 288 to 296 the pagination in the original  petition is different as having various page members as given  on  typed  copies  with  suffix  'A',  neither  the  typed  copies  supplied nor the pagination is corrected on copy supplied.

It is humbly submitted that the Registry of the Court has also  given chance to the petitioner to rectify the mistakes/remove  objections  which  could  not  have  been  given,  as  the  election  petitioner  has  no  right  to  amend  modify  the  petition  or  its  annexures after filing the same, as the annexures are to be read  with petition as are treated as integral part of the same.”    

9. It is not clear from the above whether the various deficiencies  

pointed out by the petitioner pertain to the original copy of the election  

petition  filed  in  the  High  Court  or  the  copy  served  on  the  appellant  

herein.  The emphasised portions (emphasis is ours) of the above extracts  

demonstrate the same.   

10. Legally there is a distinction between failure to sign and verify the  

original  copy of the election petition filed in the Court and failure to  

attest  the  copy  served  on  the  respondent  to  be  a  true  copy  of  the  

election  petition.   While  the  latter  failure  falls  within  the  scope  of  

Section 81(3), the earlier failure falls under sub-Section (1)(c) and sub-

Section(2)  of  Section  83.   While  the  failure  to  comply  with  the  

5

Page 6

requirements  of  Section  81  obligates  the  High  Court  to  dismiss  the  

election petition, the failure to comply with the requirements of Section  

83 is not expressly declared to be fatal to the election petition.  The said  

distinction is explained by this Court in  Manohar Joshi v. Nitin Bhaurao   

Patil and another = (1996) 1 SCC 169 paras 20 and 21Θ.

11. However, the High Court categorised the various objections raised  

in para 5 of the I.A. (extracted earlier), as falling under five heads, which  

are already extracted (at para 7) earlier by us.  Though it appears that  

while  the  objections  falling  under  category 1,  3  and  5  pertain  to  the  

defects  in  the  copy  of  the  election  petition  served  to  the  appellant  

herein,  it  is  not  very  clear  whether  the  objections  falling  under  

categories 2 and 4, referred to above, pertain to the election petition as  

Θ20. Section 86 empowers the High Court to dismiss an election petition at the threshold if it does not   comply with the provisions of Section 81 or Section 82 or Section 117 of the Act, all of which are  patent defects evident on a bare examination of the election petition as presented. Sub- section (1) of  Section 81 requires the checking of limitation with reference to the admitted facts and sub- section (3)   thereof requires only a comparison of the copy accompanying the election petition with the election  petition itself, as presented. Section 82 requires verification of the required parties to the petition with  reference to the relief claimed in the election petition. Section 117 requires verification of the deposit  of security in the High Court in accordance with rules of the High Court.  Thus, the compliance of  Section 81, 82 and 117 is to be seen with reference to the evident facts  found in the election   petition and the documents filed along with it at the time of its presentation. This is a ministerial   act. There is no scope for any further inquiry for the purpose of Section 86 to ascertain the deficiency,  if any, in the election petition found with reference to the requirements of Section 83 of the R.P. Act   which is a judicial function. For this reason, the non-compliance of Section 83, is not specified as a  ground for dismissal of the election petition under Section 86.

21. Acceptance of the argument of Shri Jethmalani would amount to reading into Section 86  an additional ground for dismissal of the election petition under Section 86 for non- compliance of  Section 83. There is no occasion to do so, particularly when Section 86 being in the nature of a penal   provision, has to be construed strictly confined to its plain language.

6

Page 7

presented to the High Court  or  copy thereof served to the appellant  

herein.

12. Further, of the eighteen objections pointed out under para 5 of  

the I.A. (extracted above), which one of the said objections falls under  

which one of the abovementioned five categories, is not identified by the  

High Court.  Apart from that there is no finding in the Judgment under  

appeal  whether any  one of  the  abovementioned eighteen  objections  is  

factually correct or not.  I regret to record that the High Court simply  

extracted  paragraphs  from  the  Judgments  of  this  Court  in  Murarka  

Radhey  Shyam Ram Kumar  v.  Roop  Singh  Rathore  &  others [1964  (3)  

S.C.R.573],  Satya Narain v.  Dhuja Ram & others [(1974) 4 S.C.C 237],  

Rajendra  Singh v.  Smt.  Usha Rani  &  others [(1984) 3 S.C.C.  339]  and  

Chandrakanth Uttam Chodankar  v.  Dayanand  Rayu Mandrakar  & others  

[(2005) 2 S.C.C. 188] and disposed of the I.A. holding:

“17. In view of the above and having regard to the decision in  Chandrakant Uttam Chodankar (supra), as well as Murarka Radhey  Shyam Ram Kumar (supra), this Court is of the opinion that in the  present instance, the election petitioner had signed on the copies  and,  therefore,  complied  with  the  standard  prescribed  under  Section  81(3).   Similarly,  the  fact  that  the  Registrar  of  this  Court had initially notified some deficiencies which were cured,  after which the matter was placed before the Court, which took  cognizance  of  the  petition,  would  mean  that  the  election  petitioner was absolved of any fault.  There is no doubt that the  election  petition,  as  originally  presented,  was  within  the  time  prescribed by law.  Moreover, this Court cannot, enquire into the  question  as  to  whether  and  if  so,  to  what  extent,  the  copies  furnished  to  the  second  respondent  were  not  complaint  with  

7

Page 8

Section 81(3) of the Act, that would amount to a mini trial – a  procedure  unknown  to  the  Act  and  in  fact  contrary  to  its  objective.   While  public  interest  lies  in  ensuring  that  suits  or  causes  which are  plainly  barred by law,  ought to  be summarily  rejected,  equally  the  court  should  not  be  over  zealous  in  the  enforcement of provisions which are procedural, though aimed at  expeditious  trial,  require  substantial  compliance.   The  larger  Bench ruling in Murarka points to this, and the court is inclined to  follow the adage that procedure is only a handmaiden,  and not  mistress of justice.”

13.  In the second part of the eighteenth objection (in para 5 of the  

I.A.), the appellant herein pleaded vaguely that the Registry of the High  

Court  gave  an  opportunity  “to  the  petitioner  to  rectify  the  

mistakes/remove objections, which could not have been given”.  The High  

Court  by  the  impugned  Judgment  records  that  “the  fact  that  the  

Registrar of this Court had initially notified some deficiencies which  

were cured, after which the matter was placed before the Court,  

which took cognizance of the petition, would mean that the election  

petitioner was absolved of any fault”.

14. Both, the pleading as well as the finding of the High Court, are as  

vague  as  the  vagueness  could  be.   Exposition  of  law  without  first  

identifying the relevant “facts in issue”, in my opinion, does not promote  

the cause of justice.  The Appeal, insofar as the first issue identified by  

us in para 5 of the Judgment, is required to be allowed and remanded to  

8

Page 9

the High Court for an appropriate consideration of the objections raised  

by the appellant herein, in accordance with law.

15. I shall  now deal with the third issue argued before us.   Though  

elaborate submissions were made before us on this issue by the learned  

senior  counsel  appearing  on  either  side,  the  relevant  pleading  in  the  

petition is very sketchy and is to be found in para 14 of the Interlocutory  

Application which reads as follows:

“That in annexures 1 of the petition, the petitioner has annexed a  complaint  made by the Youth for  Equality  to  the Hon’ble  Chief  Election Commissioner of India by alleging various irregularities by  BJP & Congress Candidates namely Sh. Vijay Goel & Sh. Ajay Maken  in New Delhi Parliamentary constituency and in para B sub para (i)  at page 15 of the petition a mention of the said complaint is made.  The present election petition is  apparently  a proxy litigation by  presenting the present election petition at the instance of the said  BJP  candidate  whose  other  complaints  etc.  have  been  annexed  along with the petition.

As per the provisions of section 82 of the Representation of  People  Act  1951  a  petitioner  shall  join  as  respondents  to  his  petition.  (b) any other candidate against whom allegations of any  corrupt practice are made in the petition.

It  is  not  out  of  place  to  mention  here  that  in  the  alleged  complaint  annexed  as  Annexure  I  similar  allegations  are  made  against Sh. Vijay Goel,  a candidate at the said election which is  under challenge and he is a necessary party as per the provisions  of Section 82 of the Act.”

16. A reading of the above paragraphs leaves us with the impression  

that the emphasis of the paragraphs is on the belief of the appellant that  

the  election  petition  is  a  proxy  litigation  undertaken  by  the  election  

petitioner on behalf of the unsuccessful BJP candidate.  It is only in the  

9

Page 10

last sub-paragraph extracted above,  a cryptic legal objection is raised  

that in view of the fact that Annexure-I of the election petition not only  

contains allegations of commission of corrupt practice by the appellant  

herein,  but  also  by  Vijay  Goel  (BJP  candidate).   In  view  of  the  

requirement of Section 82(b) of the Act,  Vijay Goel must also have been  

made a respondent to the election petition and failure to so implead is  

fatal to the election petition.

17. No doubt, Section 82(b) on a plain reading or on the principle of  

literal  construction,  seems  to  require  that  all  the  candidates  against  

whom allegations of commission of corrupt practice are MADE IN THE  

PETITION  must be made parties / respondents to the election petition.  

The ISSUE in the case is whether such allegations are MADE against  

Vijay Goel in the election petition and if MADE, is Vijay Goel required to  

be made a respondent to the election petition.

18. It is pointed out by this Court in Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless   

General Finance and Investment Company Limited and others [(1987) 1  

SCC 424]:

“Interpretation  must  depend  on  the  text  and  the  context........  Neither can be ignored.  Both are important.  That interpretation  is  best  which  makes  the  textual  interpretation  match  the  contextual.  A statute is best interpreted when we know why it  was enacted.”

10

Page 11

Adopting the principle of literal construction of the Statute alone, in all  

circumstances without examining the context and scheme of the Statute,  

may not sub-serve the purpose of the Statute.  In the words of Justice  

Iyer, such an approach would be - - “to see the skin and miss the  

soul”.   Whereas,  “The  judicial  key  to  construction  is  the  

composite perception of the deha and the dehi of the provision”  

(Chairman,  Board  of  Mining  Examination  and  Chief  Inspector  of   

Mines v. Ramjee AIR 1977 SC 965).

19. This Court in Tirath Singh v. Bachittar Singh and others (AIR 1955  

SC 830) dealing with a question of interpretation of Section 99 of the  

Act, declined to follow the rule of literal construction of the Statute on  

the ground that it would lead to absurdity, presumably, not intended by  

the Statute having regard to the scheme and the purpose of the Act.

20. The  election  petitioner  made  the  allegations  of  commission  of  

various corrupt practices falling under various sub-sections of Section  

123 of the Act, by either the appellant herein or the election agent of  

the appellant herein.  The election petition particularly contains extensive  

details of the corrupt practice falling under Section 123(6) r/w Section  

77  of  the  Act,  running  to  18  typed  pages.   The  material  facts  and  

particulars of the abovementioned corrupt practice are set out in great  11

Page 12

detail.  It is in the process of the abovementioned narration, the election  

petitioner  made  a  reference  to  two  annexures  viz.,  Annexure-H  and  

Annexure-I.  That portion of the election petition reads as follows:

“The petitioner submits that in this regard complaint  was filed  before the Returning Officer on 5th May, 2009 by Shri Mantu,  Independent  candidate,  New  Delhi  Parliamentary  Constituency.  The Complaint specifically  states that the respondent No.2 has  incurred a huge expenditure on hoardings and had exceeded the  prescribed  expenditure  limit  of  Rs.25  lakhs.   The  copy  of  the  complaint dated 5th May, 2009 is marked and annexed herewith as  ANNEXURE-H.

Youth  for  equality  had  also  filed  similar  complaint  with  the  Election Commissioner of India to take action that all hoarding put  up at private places be pulled down and add the market cost on the  these site be added to the expenditure account of the candidate.  The copy of the complaint to the Election Commissioner of India is  marked and annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-I.”     

21.    It is the said Annexure-I, which makes a reference to the name of  

Vijay  Goel.   I  may  make  it  clear  that  except  a  mention  in  the  said  

annexure, the name of Vijay Goel is not mentioned anywhere in the body  

of  the  election  petition.  It  can  be  seen  from  the  above  extracted  

pleading  of  the  election  petitioner  that  he  referred  to  the  

abovementioned  Annexure-I  in  the  context  of  the  commission  of  a  

corrupt practice falling under Section 123(7) r/w Section 77 of the Act  

by the appellant herein.   The substance of the allegation,  where a  

reference to Annexure-I is made, is that the complaint, such as the one  

made by the election  petitioner,  had also been made by another body  

12

Page 13

called “Youth for equality” to the Election Commission of India and a copy  

of the complaint, allegedly, made by the said “Youth for equality” is filed  

as  Annexure-I  to  the  election  petition,  obviously,  for  the  purpose  of  

deriving support for the allegation made by the election petitioner.   

22. Learned  senior  counsel  Shri  K.  Parasaran  appearing  for  the  

appellant  submitted  that  in  view  of  the  decisions  of  this  Court  in  

Sahodrabai Rai v. Ram Singh Aharwar, (1968) 3 SCR 13, M. Karunanidhi v.  

H.V. Hande, (1983) 2 SCC 473 and  Mulayam Singh Yadav v.  Dharam Pal   

Yadav,  (2001)  7 SCC 98,  if  an  election  petition  contains annexures or  

schedules attached to it, whose content is not elaborately described in  

the body of the election petition, but only referred to as containing the  

factual  basis  for  seeking declaration  of  nullity  of the election  of the  

returned candidate, such annexures or schedules become an integral part  

of the election petition and, therefore, all  the allegations contained in  

such schedules or annexures become allegations in the election petition.  

If such allegations pertain to commission of any corrupt practice by any  

one of the candidates at the election other than the returned candidate,  

such other candidates are also required to be made parties-respondents  

to the election petition in view of the law laid down by this Court in Har  

Swarup & another v. Brij Bhushan Saran & others [1967 (1) SCR 342],  

13

Page 14

Mohan Rai v. Surendra Kumar Taparia & others [1969 (1) SCR 630], Kashi   

Nath v. Smt. Kudisa Begum and others [(1970) 3 SCC 554] and  Gadnis   

Bhawani Shankar V v. Faleiro Eduardo Martinho [(2000) 7 SCC 472].   

23 . It is argued by Shri Parasaran that since the election petitioner  

referred to Annexure I in the body of the election petition without fully  

describing the content of the same, Annexure I becomes an integral part  

of  the  election  petition.   Since  in  the  said  annexure  allegations  of  

commission of corrupt  practice,  similar  to the one alleged against the  

appellant herein,  are made against Vijay Goel,  the said Vijay Goel  also  

ought  to  have  been  impleaded  as  party-respondent  to  the  election  

petition in view of the mandate contained in Section 82(b) of the Act.  

Since, Vijay Goel is not made a party-respondent to the election petition,  

there is a failure to comply with the requirements of Section 82, which is  

declared to be fatal to the election petition under Section 86 of the Act.  

24. On  the  other  hand,  learned  senior  counsel  Shri  Ranjit  Kumar  

appearing  for  the  respondent-election  petitioner  argued  that  the  

proposition of law settled by this Court that an annexure or schedule to  

the election petition becomes an integral  part of the election petition  

only in certain circumstances, but it is also recognised by this Court that  

in  certain  other  circumstances  annexures  are  only  evidence  of  the  

14

Page 15

allegation contained in the election petition, but not an integral part of  

the pleading of the election petition.  Shri Ranjit Kumar submitted that  

the purpose of the election petition with reference to the annexure-I is  

only  to  derive  support  to  his  allegation  of  the  commission  of  corrupt  

practice by the appellant herein by demonstrating that such allegation  

against the appellant is not only made by the election petitioner but also  

by others during the course of the election.  It is neither the intention of  

the election  petitioner to make any  allegation  of  corrupt  practice nor  

seek any relief against Vijay Goel.  Therefore, the election petitioner is  

not legally obliged to implead Vijay Goel as a party-respondent to the  

election petition.   

25. If the complaint made by the “Youth for equality” to the Election  

Commission  of  India  contains  allegations  of  commission  of  corrupt  

practice  not  only  by  the  appellant  herein,  but  also  by  some  other  

candidate  at  the  election,  can  such  allegations  against  the  candidate  

other than the appellant herein  be read as allegations made in the  

election petition by the extension of fiction judicially created on the  

interpretation  of  Section  81(3)  of  the  Act,  is  the  question  to  be  

examined.

15

Page 16

26. To decide the issue, it is necessary to examine; (1) who can file an  

election petition; (2) what are the grounds that can be taken; (3) what is  

the relief that can be claimed and granted; (4) who are required to be  

made parties; and (5) what is the procedure to be followed in presenting  

an  election  petition;  and  also  the  scheme of  the  Act  insofar  as  it  is  

relevant apart from the ratio of the above-referred decisions of this  

Court.  

27. Article 329¥ of the Constitution prohibits the calling in question  

any election to either the House of the Parliament or the Legislature of a  

State except by an election petition in such manner as may be provided  

for  by  or  under  any  law  by  the  appropriate  legislature.   The  

Representation  of  the  People  Act,  1951  is  such  a  law  made  by  the  

Parliament.   It  deals  with  the  method  and  manner  of  conduct  of  the  

elections  including  the  resolution  of  disputes  regarding  the  elections.  

This court has repeatedly held that an election petition is not a common  

law proceeding, but a creature of the statute.   

¥ 329.  Bar  to  interference  by  courts  in  electoral  matters.  -  [Notwithstanding  anything  in  this  Constitution]  

               (a)   the  validity  of  any  law  relating  to  the  delimitation  of  constituencies  or  the  allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under Article 327 or  Article 328, shall not be called in question in any court;  

               (b)   no election to either House of Parliament or to the House or either House of the  Legislature of a 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.

16

Page 17

28. Part VI of the Act deals with disputes regarding elections.  Section  

80 stipulates that “no election shall be called in question except by an  

election  petition  presented  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  this  

part”.   

29. Section 80A invests the power to try election petitions in the High  

Court.  Section 79(e) defines the High Court to mean, the High Court  

within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the disputed election took  

place.

30. Section 81 deals with the presentation of election petitions:

“81. Presentation of petitions.—(1) An election petition calling in  question any election may be presented on one or more of the  grounds specified in sub-section (1) of section 100 and section 101  to the High Court by any candidate at such election or any elector  within  forty-five  days  from,  but  not  earlier  than  the  date  of  election of the returned candidate or if there are more than one  returned candidate at the election and dates of their election are  different, the later of those two dates.

Explanation.—In this  sub-section,  “elector”  means  a  person  who  was entitled to vote at the election to which the election petition  relates, whether he has voted at such election or not.

(2) …  (Omitted  by  Act  47  of  1966,  sec.39  (w.e.f.  14.12.1966)

(3) Every election petition shall be accompanied by as many copies  thereof as there are respondents mentioned in the petition and  every such copy shall be attested by the petitioner under his own  signature to be a true copy of the petition.”

  It stipulates:

(i) The grounds on which an election can be challenged;

17

Page 19

affidavit in the prescribed form and also every annexure or schedule to  

the petition be signed and verified in the same manner as the petition.

33. Section 84 stipulates the reliefs that can be sought in an election  

petition.  It reads:

“84. Relief that may be claimed by the petitioner: A petitioner  may, in addition to claiming a declaration that the election of all or  any of the returned candidates is void, claim a further declaration  that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected.”

It can be seen from the above that in an election petition the petitioner  

can claim declaration that;  (1)  the election of a returned candidate is  

void; and (2) a further declaration that either the petitioner himself or  

any other candidate has been duly elected.   

34. We have already noticed that section 81 stipulates that an election  

can be challenged  only on one or more of the grounds specified under  

19

Page 20

sections 1001 and 1012 of the Act.  Section 100 stipulates various grounds  

on which election of a returned candidate can be declared to be void,  

while  Section  101  stipulates  circumstances  under  which  a  further  

declaration  contemplated under Section  84,  can  be given  by the  High  

Court (after declaring the election of a returned candidate to be void)  

1 Section 100 - Grounds for declaring election to be void

[(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) if [the High court] is of opinion-

(a) that on the date of his election a returned candidate was not qualified, or was disqualified, to be chosen to fill the  seat under the Constitution or this Act [or the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 (20 of 1963)]; or

(b) that any corrupt practice has been committed by a returned candidate or his election agent or by any other person  with the consent of returned candidate or his election agent; or

(c) that any nomination has been improperly rejected; or

(d) that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a returned candidate, has been materially affected-

(i) by the improper acceptance or any nomination, or

(ii) by any corrupt practice committed in the interests of the returned candidate [by an agent other than his election  agent], or

(iii) by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void, or

(iv) by any non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or of this Act or of any rules or orders made under  this Act,

the High Court shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void.

2 Section 101 - Grounds for which a candidate other than the returned candidate may be declared to have been  elected

If any person who has lodged a petition has, in addition to calling in question the election of  the returned candidate, claimed a declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected  and [the High Court] is of opinion-

(a) that in fact the petitioner or such other candidate received a majority of the valid votes; or

(b) that but for the votes obtained by the returned candidate by corrupt practices the petitioner  or such other candidate would have obtained a majority of the valid voles,

the High Court shall, after declaring the election of the returned candidate to be void declare  the petitioner or such other candidate, as the case may be, to have been duly elected.

20

Page 21

that some candidate other than the returned candidate is duly elected in  

the said election.

35. What should be the prayer in an election petition is a matter of the  

petitioner’s choice.  It is for the petitioner to decide whether he would  

be satisfied with a declaration of nullity of the election of the returned  

candidate  or  a  further  declaration  such  as  one  contemplated  under  

section 101 is to be sought.   

36. However,  as  to  who  should  be  made  parties/respondents  to  an  

election petition is stipulated under section 82 and not left to the choice  

of an election petitioner.  Section 82 reads thus:

“82.   Parties  to  the  petition.—A  petitioner  shall  join  as  respondents to his petition—

(a) where  the  petitioner,  in  addition  to  claiming  declaration  that the election of all or any of the returned candidates is  void, claims a further declaration that he himself or any  other candidate has been duly election, 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.”

 37. It can be seen from section 82 as to who should be made parties to  

an election petition depends upon two factors.   

38. The  first  factor  is  the  nature  of  the  relief  sought  by  the  

petitioner.  Where a further declaration as contemplated under section  

21

Page 22

101  is  sought,  the  petitioner  is  bound  to  make  all  the  contesting  

candidates parties respondents to the election petition.  Where no such  

declaration is sought, the section stipulates that it is enough to make all  

the returned candidates at the election, parties to the election petition.  

The  employment  of  the  expression  “all  the  returned  candidates”  is  

obviously meant to cover disputes relating to elections to Rajya Sabha or  

Legislative Councils where more than one candidate is declared elected at  

the same election.   

39. The second factor is the ground on which declaration of nullity of  

the  election  of  the  returned  candidate  is  sought.   It  must  be  

remembered  that  the  election  of  any  returned  candidate  can  be  

questioned on various grounds specified under section 100(1) of the Act,  

such  as,  lack  of  qualification  or  disqualification  on  the  part  of  the  

candidate, the commission of corrupt practices by the returned candidate  

or his election agent etc. or the improper rejection of the nomination of  

any candidate at the election etc.     

40. The  following  propositions  emerge  from the  above  analysis.   An  

election  to  the  Parliament  or  the  State  Legislature  can  be  called  in  

question  only  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the  Act.   Such  a  

question can be raised only before the High Court.  The High Court, in an  

22

Page 23

election dispute, can declare the election of the returned candidate to be  

void.  It may also give a further declaration in an appropriate case and  

subject to compliance with the procedural requirements that either the  

election petitioner or any other candidate at the questioned election, has  

been duly elected.  The first of the abovementioned declarations can be  

made  only  on  one  or  some  of  the  various  grounds  enumerated  under  

Section 100 of the Act.    

41. In the present case, the relief sought by the election petitioner is  

only the declaration of nullity of the election of the appellant herein on  

the ground of commission of corrupt practices, but a further declaration  

contemplated under Section 84 read with Section 101 of the Act is not  

sought.   Therefore,  I  examine  the  relevant  provisions.   Section  100  

prescribes  that  if  the  High  Court  is  of  the  opinion  that  any  corrupt  

practice has been committed by a returned candidate or his election  

agent or by any other person with the consent of either the  

returned  candidate  or  his  election  agent,  “the  High  Court  shall  

declare the election of the returned candidate to be void”.   

“Section  100.  Grounds  for  declaring  election  to  be  void:  (1)  Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) if  [the High Court] is  of opinion - (a) ............................

23

Page 24

(b) that any corrupt practice has been committed by a returned  candidate or his election agent or by any other person with the  consent of a returned candidate or his election agent;..........”

The said section also stipulates that if it is established before the High  

Court that a corrupt practice has been committed in the interest of the  

returned candidate by an agent other than his election agent, then,  

the High Court is also required to form an opinion that “the result of the  

election, insofar as it concerns returned candidate, has been materially  

effected”, before declaring the election of the returned candidate void.   

“Section 100. (d) that the result of the election, in so far as it  concerns a returned candidate, has been materially affected- (i) .......................... (ii)  by  any  corrupt  practice  committed  in  the  interests  of  the  returned candidate [by an agent other than his election agent],”  

[Emphasis supplied]

The  clause  “by  an  agent  other  than  his  election  agent”  occurring  in  

Section 100(1)(d)(ii), must be understood in the light of Section 99 (2),  

which reads as follows:

“In this section and in section 100, the expression “agent” has the  same meaning as in Section 123.”

And Section 123(8) explanation, which reads as follows:

“In this section the expression “agent” includes an election agent,  a polling  agent and any person who is held to have acted as an  agent  in  connection  with  the  election  with  the  consent  of  the  candidate............”

24

Page 25

The Act enables the appointment, by every contesting candidate – of an  

election agent, polling agents and counting agents (Sections 40,  46 and 47≠  

respectively).

42. If the commission of a corrupt practice by a candidate other than  

the returned candidate or his election agent, etc., indicated above,  is  

wholly  immaterial  for  determining  the  validity  of  the  election  of  the  

returned candidate, I am  at a loss to understand as to why would any  

election  petitioner  MAKE  allegations  of  the  commission  of  corrupt  

practices by candidates other than the returned candidate, particularly in  

an election petition, where further relief contemplated under Section 84  

is not sought for, such as the one on hand.  

43. Section 83(1)(b) requires that an election petition shall set forth  

“as full a statement as possible of the names of the  parties alleged to  

have committed such corrupt practice”.  In my opinion the employment of  

the expression “Parties” in the abovementioned clause is to compendiously  

cover  the  returned  candidate,  his  election  agent  or  any  other  person  

≠ 40. Election agents.- A candidate at an election may appoint in the prescribed  manner any one person  other than himself to be his election agent and when any such appointment is made, notice of the  appointment shall be given in the prescribed manner to the returning officer.

46. Appointment of polling agents.- A contesting candidate or his election agent may appoint   in the prescribed manner such number of agents and relief agents as may be prescribed to act as polling  agents of such candidate at each polling station provided under section 25 or at the place fixed under  sub-section (1) of section 29 for the poll.

47. Appointment of counter agents.- A contesting candidate or his election may appoint in the prescribed manner one or more persons, but not exceeding such   number as may be prescribed, to the present as his counting agent or agents at the counting of votes, and when any such appointment is made notice of the appointment shall be   

given in the prescribed manner to the returning officer.

25

Page 26

committing a corrupt practice with the consent of either the returned  

candidate or his election agent or any other agent committing a corrupt  

practice falling within the scope of Section 100(d)(ii).   

44. Section  98  stipulates  that  at  the  conclusion  of  the  trial  of  an  

election  petition,  the  High  Court  is  obliged  to  make  an  order  either  

dismissing the election petition or declaring the election of a returned  

candidate void apart from giving a declaration that another candidate to  

have  been duly  elected in  an  appropriate case,  where such a  relief  is  

sought  successfully.   Section  99  of  the  Act  stipulates  that  the  High  

Court is also obliged to make an order in an election petition where a  

charge of corrupt practice is made; (1) whether such a charge is proved  

or not; (2) the nature of the corrupt practice, i.e., under which one of the  

Sub-sections of Section 123 of the Act the corrupt practice falls; and (3)  

the names of all persons, who are proved at the trial to have been guilty  

of any corrupt practice.

45. The  question  of  proof  of  the  commission  of  a  corrupt  practice  

arises  only  if  there  is  an  appropriate  pleading  in  that  regard  in  the  

election petition.  I have already noticed that Section 83 stipulates that  

an election petition, which contains allegations of corrupt practice, must  

contain full particulars of the “names of the  parties” alleged to have  

26

Page 27

committed a corrupt practice.  I am of the opinion that the Legislature  

chose to use the expression 'PARTIES' for the reason that there are  

various categories of persons, who are capable of committing a corrupt  

practice in connection with the election of a returned candidate - (i) the  

returned  candidate; or (ii) his election agent, or (iii) any other person  

with the consent of either the returned candidate or his election agent;  

or  (iv)  any  other  agent,  as  explained  earlier.   The  difference  in  the  

language of Section 82 and 83(1)(b), in my opinion, is significant.  While  

Section 82 speaks of candidates, Section 83(1)(b) speaks of parties.

46. I shall now examine the question whether the election petitioner  

MADE allegations against Vijay Goel in the ELECTION PETITION.  To  

examine the correctness of the submission made by Sri Parasaran in this  

regard, I must examine the 3 Judgments relied upon by Sri Parasaran.

47. The facts of Sahodrabai case are as follows:

48. Ram  Singh  was  declared  elected  to  the  Lok  Sabha  from Sagar  

constituency  of  Madhya  Pradesh.   His  election  was  questioned  by  

Sahodrabai  on  various  grounds  including  the  commission  of  a  corrupt  

practice  falling  under  Section  123(3)  of  the  Act.   According  to  

Sahodrabai,  the content of a pamphlet (in Hindi) -  a copy of which is  

annexed to  the  election  petition,  allegedly  circulated  by  the  returned  

27

Page 28

candidate, constitutes the abovementioned corrupt practice.  The content  

of the said pamphlet was translated into English and incorporated in the  

election petition itself.   A preliminary objection was raised by Ram Singh  

that  the  election  petition  should  be  dismissed  on  the  ground  of  

contravention of Section 81(3) of the Act because it was alleged by Ram  

Singh  that  a  copy  of  the  election  petition  served  on  him  was  not  

accompanied by a copy of the pamphlet referred to above.   The High  

Court found, as a matter of fact, that a copy of the election petition  

served on Ram Singh was not accompanied by a copy of the pamphlet.

49. Dealing  with  the question whether such a copy served on  

Ram Singh was a true copy within the meaning of Section 81(3) of the  

Act, this Court held as follows:

“we would say that since the election petition itself reproduced  the whole of the pamphlet in a translation in English, it could be  said  that  the  averments  with  regard  to  the  pamphlet  were  themselves a part of the petition and therefore the pamphlet was  served upon the respondents although in a translation and not in a  original.  Even if this be not the case, we are quite clear that sub-s.  (2)of s.83 has reference not to a document which is produced as  evidence  of  the  averments  of  the  election  petition  but  to  averments  of  the  election  petition  which  are  put,  not  in  the  election petition but in the accompanying schedules or annexures.”

It was further held by this Court:

“But what we have said here does not apply to documents which are  merely evidence in the case but which for reasons of clarity and to  lend force tot eh petition are not kept back but produced or filed  with the election petitions.  xxx   xxx   xxx  It would be stretching  the  words  of  sub-s.  (2)  of  s.  83  too  far  to  think  that  every  

28

Page 29

document produced as evidence in the election petition becomes a  part of the election petition proper.”

50. From the above, it can be seen that two propositions of law are  

settled by this Court.  Firstly, when an election petition is accompanied by  

annexures, whose content is completely described in the election petition,  

failure to serve a copy of such an annexure along with the copy of the  

election petition on a respondent to the election petition does not render  

the copy served on the respondent anything other than a true copy of the  

election  petition.   Secondly,  even in  a  case where the content  of the  

annexure is not fully described in the election petition, the non-supply of  

such  annexure  along  with  the  copy  of  the  election  petition  to  the  

respondent does not violate the mandate of Section 81(3) in those cases  

where annexure is only sought to be used as evidence of some allegation  

contained in the election petition.

51. In M. Karunanidhi v. Dr. H.V. Hande & Ors., (1983) 2 SCC 473, the  

facts are as follows:

52. M. Karunanidhi was declared elected to the Legislative Assembly of  

Tamil  Nadu from Anna Nagar  Assembly  Constituency.   Hande filed an  

election  petition  challenging  the  election  of  Karunanidhi  on  various  

grounds.   One  of  them  was  that  Karunanidhi  incurred  expenditure  in  

29

Page 30

connection  with  the  election  in  excess  of  the  expenditure  permitted  

under Section 77 of the Act.  Such contravention by itself is declared to  

be a corrupt practice under Section 123(6) of the Act.  According to Dr.  

Hande,  such  excessive  expenditure  was  incurred  on  account  of  the  

erection of about 50 fancy banners throughout the constituency at a cost  

of Rs.50,000/-.  The photograph of one such banner was filed as annexure  

along  with  the  petition.   Admittedly,  a  copy  of  the  election  petition  

served  on  Karunanidhi  was  not  accompanied  by  a  copy  of  the  said  

photograph.   This  Court  opined  that  the  photograph  was  not  a  mere  

evidence of the allegations contained in the election petition of Dr. Hande  

and it is an integral part of the election petition as without a copy of the  

photograph, the election petition would be “incomplete”.  It is only a case  

where the principle laid down in Sahodrabai case was applied to the facts.  

53. In Mulayam Singh case, Mulayam Singh was declared elected to the  

Lok Sabha from Sambhal Parliamentary Constituency.  Dharam Pal Yadav,  

one of the other candidates, filed an election petition on various grounds.  

One  of  the  grounds  is  commission  of  the  corrupt  practice  of  booth  

capturing  falling  under  Section  123(8)  of  the  Act.   There  were  15  

respondents  to  the  election  petition  and  25  schedules.   Schedule  14  

pertains to the allegation of corrupt practice.  In the election petition, it  

30

Page 31

was averred that there was booth capturing, arson, violence in large scale  

which  was  captured  in  videograph  under  the  orders  of  the  Election  

Commission.   A copy of the  said  videograph was  averred to had been  

attached to the election  petition  as Schedule  14.   On the facts,  this  

Court recorded at para 12 and 13 as follows:

“12.   xxx xxx xxx As  to  booth-capturing,  there  are particulars contained in the other schedules but even in that  regard  the  later  paragraphs  of  the  election  petition  make  reference  to  Schedule  14  so  that  even  in  regard  to  booth- capturing the particulars shown in the video cassette mentioned  and  verified  in  Schedule  14  are  relied  upon.  So  far  as  the  allegations  of  violence  and  arson  are  concerned,  there  are  no  particulars  in  the election petition  absent  the  video  cassette  mentioned and verified in Schedule 14.

13. We  are,  therefore,  satisfied  that  the  video  cassette  mentioned and verified in Schedule 14 is an integral part of the  election petition and that it should have been filed in court along  with  copies  thereof  for  service  upon  the  respondents  to  the  election  petition.  Whereas  15  copies  thereof  were  filed  for  service upon the respondents, the video cassette itself was not  filed. The election petition as filed was, therefore, not complete.”

[Emphasis supplied]

and held that in the absence of any particulars in the body of the election  

petition, the videograph becomes an integral part of the election petition  

and  failure  to  attach  a  copy  to  the  election  petition  is  fatal  to  the  

election petition.   Once again,  a case where the principle laid down in  

Sahodrabai case is applied to the facts.

54.    In Sahodrabai case, the specific allegation in the election petition  

was that circulation of the annexure in issue by the returned candidate  31

Page 32

tantamounted to the commission of corrupt practice described in Section  

123(3) of the Act, because of its content.  I must hasten to add whether  

the  content  of  the  said  annexure,  would  fall  within  the  definition  of  

corrupt practice contained under Section 123(3) was not examined by this  

Court as it was not called upon.  This Court assumed the correctness of  

the allegation for the limited purpose of examining the issue before it.  

Even in such a case, this Court held since the content, in its entirety, of  

the annexure was fully described in the body of the election petition,  

non-supply of such an annexure is not fatal - on the ground, it is violative  

of Section 81(3) of the Act.   

55. The purpose of the stipulation under Section 81(3) is to put the  

returned candidate on notice of the various allegations made against him  

in  order  to  enable  him  to  defend  himself  effectively  in  the  election  

petition – a stipulation flowing from the requirement of one of the basic  

postulates of the principles of natural justice.  Once the content of the  

annexure, the whole of which pertains to the commission of the corrupt  

practice alleged in the election petition, is described in the body of the  

election petition with sufficient clarity, the returned candidate cannot  

complain  that  he  was  denied  a  reasonable  opportunity  of  defending  

himself or that he was taken by surprise at the trial.  Therefore, non-

32

Page 33

supply of the annexure in such cases was held to be immaterial and the  

copy of the election petition supplied to the returned candidate sans the  

annexure would still be a true copy within the meaning of the expression  

under  Section  81(3).   It  is  in  this  context  the  Court  observed  in   

Sahodrabai case that the annexure became part of the election petition.

56.   In my opinion, none of the abovementioned three cases laid down as  

an  absolute  principle  that  an  annexure  to  an  election  petition,  whose  

content  is  not  described  in  the  election  petition,  would  become  the  

integral part of the election petition for all the purposes.  It is only  

for a  limited purpose of deciding the question whether a copy of the  

election petition, served on the respondent in the election petition, is a  

true  copy  of  the  original  filed  into  the  Court  within  the  meaning  of  

Section 81(3) of the Act, annexures are treated as integral part of the  

election petition, that too, only in the situation, where the content of the  

annexure is not fully described in the body of the main petition.

57. Now,  I  shall  examine  the  question  whether  the  allegations  of  

commission of corrupt practice are MADE in the election petition within  

the meaning of the expression under Section 82(b).

58. Obviously the allegations must be MADE by the election petitioner.  

In a case like the one on hand where the election petitioner does not  

33

Page 34

make any such allegation in the body of the election petition, but such  

allegations are found in some document annexed to the election petition –  

of which the election petitioner is not the author - can it be said that the  

allegations are MADE in the petition ?

59. In my opinion the answer to the question must be in the negative.  

Because,  firstly, the document annexure is not authored by the election  

petitioner;  secondly, in the entire body of the election petition there is  

no reference to any corrupt practice committed by Vijay Goel.  Making  

such an allegation against Vijay Goel would in no way help the election  

petitioner  to obtain  the relief  sought  by him in  the election  petition.  

Even at the cost of the repetition I must state that the election petition  

does not seek a further declaration contemplated under Section 84 of  

the Act.  As rightly, argued by Shri Ranjit Kumar, the purpose of the  

annexure is only to derive support to the allegation of the commission of  

corrupt practice alleged against the appellant only.  Therefore, only that  

much of the content of the annexure as is relevant to the allegations  

made in the election petition proper must be considered to have become  

integral part of the election petition.

60.    To stretch the principle laid down in Sahodrabai case, to say, that  

an  annexure  becomes  an  integral  part  of  the  election  petition  for  all  

34

Page 35

purposes  and,  therefore,  hold  that  the  allegations  made  against  Vijay  

Goel  in  the  annexure  by  somebody  other  than  the  election  petitioner  

would become allegations MADE in the election petition, would lead to  

absurd results; that is what exactly sought to be done by the appellant  

herein.  I reject the submission.

61. In  view  of  my  above  conclusion,  I  do  not  wish  to  examine  the  

purport  and  interpretation  of  Section  82(b).   I  must  also  place  it  on  

record that we gave our anxious consideration to the four judgments i.e.,  

Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar case,  Satya Narain case,  Rajendra   

Singh case and Chandrakanth Uttam Chodankar case, which dealt with the  

interpretation of Section 82(b) and I am of the prima facie opinion that  

those  judgments  may  require  reconsideration  in  an  appropriate  case.  

Since, the same is not necessary for the present in view of my conclusion  

recorded above,  I refrain from examining the correctness of the said  

decisions.

62. In the result, I hold that the election petition cannot be dismissed  

on the ground that Vijay Goel is not made a party.  But, in so far as the  

question whether the election petition is required to be dismissed on the  

ground that the copy served on the appellant is not the true copy of the  

original within the meaning of Section 81(3), I remit the matter to the  

35

Page 36

High Court for disposal in accordance with law and in the light of this  

judgement.

…………………………………………J.                                               (J. CHELAMESWAR)

New Delhi; December 11, 2012

36

Page 37

37

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.8919    OF 2012 [@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(CIVIL) NO.24716 OF 2011]

Ajay Maken … Appellant  

            versus

Adesh Kumar Gupta & Anr.  … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.

1. Having had the privilege of going through the  

draft  judgment  of  my  learned  Brother,  Jasti  

Chelameswar,  J.,  I  am  in  agreement  with  the  

conclusions  arrived  at  by  him  as  also  the  

directions to remit the matter to the High Court

Page 38

38

for disposal in accordance with law in the light of  

the views expressed in the judgment.  I, however,  

wish to add a few words in addition to what has  

been stated by my learned Brother.  

2. In dealing with the provisions of Sections 82  

and 83 of the Representation of the People Act,  

1951,  my  learned  Brother  has  very  dexterously  

pointed  out  the  differences  contained  therein.  

However, the provisions of Sections 82 and 83 of  

the 1951 Act have to be read harmoniously. While  

Section 82 relates to who should be made parties in  

the Election Petition, Section 83 relates to the  

contents of the Petition.  As far as Section 82 is  

concerned, while Clause (a) provides that when in  

addition  to  claiming  a  declaration  that  the  

election of all or any of the returned candidates  

is  void,  the  Petitioner  claims  a  further  

declaration that he himself or any other candidate  

has  been  duly  elected,  all  the  contesting

Page 39

39

candidates, other than the Petitioner, and where no  

such  further  declaration  is  claimed,  all  the  

returned candidates have to be made parties. Clause  

(b) in addition requires that any other candidate  

against whom allegations of corrupt practice are  

made in the Petition, has to be made a party to the  

Election Petition.  As pointed out by my learned  

Brother,  the  emphasis  is  on  the  use  of  the  

expression “allegations of any corrupt practice are  

made in the Petition”. In other words, in order for  

any  other  candidate  to  be  made  a  party  to  the  

Election Petition, allegations of corrupt practice  

would have to be made against him in the  Election  

Petition itself.   

3. The question with which we are concerned is  

whether  an  annexure  to  the  Petition  in  which  

allegations of corrupt practice are made against a  

candidate,  without  any  allegation  being  made  

against him in the Election Petition itself, can be

Page 40

40

said  to  be  an  integral  part  of  the  Election  

Petition.   

4.   Considering  the  fact  that  Section  83(1)(b)  

requires  an  Election  Petition  to  contain  full  

particulars of any corrupt practice alleged by the  

Petitioner,  can  a  document  which  contains  

allegations of corrupt practice against a candidate  

against whom no allegation is made in the Election  

Petition itself, be deemed to be a part of the  

Election Petition. In order to apply the decisions  

of this Court, referred to in my learned Brother's  

judgment, to the facts of this case, it would be  

necessary that some allegation of corrupt practice  

would  have  to  be  made  in  the  Election  Petition  

itself against a person against whom allegations of  

corrupt practice may separately have been made. In  

my view, in the absence of any such allegation in  

the  Petition,  the  provisions  of  clause  (b)  of  

Section 82 will not be attracted.

Page 41

41

5.Accordingly,  while  agreeing  with  my  learned  

Brother that the allegations made against Mr. Vijay  

Goel,  contained  in  annexure  to  the  Election  

Petition, can have no bearing on the facts at issue  

in the Election Petition itself, in my estimation  

Shri Vijay Goel is not required to be made a party  

to the Election Petition.  As also indicated by my  

learned  Brother,  the  matter  may  require  further  

examination in an appropriate case.  However, in  

the facts of this case, the non-impleadment of Shri  

Vijay Goel against whom there were no allegations  

in  the  Election  Petition  is  not  fatal  to  the  

Election Petition and the matter is required to be  

re-examined by the High Court, as indicated by my  

learned Brother.  

…………………………………………………CJI.    (ALTAMAS KABIR)

New Delhi Dated: December 11, 2012.

Page 42

42

 CORRIGENDUM

No.F.3/Ed.B.J./02/2013  dated  11.01.2013  issued  (in  judgment  delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.Chelameswar).  In Para No.55,  2nd last line of para, FOR 'It is in this context the Court observed  that  the'  READ:'It  is  in  this  context  the  Court  observed  in  Sahodrabai case that the'