Delhi High Court Rejects AAP Leader Somnath Bharti's Plea Challenging Election Of BJP MLA Satish Upadhyay From Malviya Nagar

The Delhi High Court on Friday (January 17) dismissed an election petition filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Somnath Bharti, challenging the election of Bharatiya Janata Party's Satish Upadhyay from the Malviya Nagar Assembly constituency.

Bharti, a former Delhi Law Minister and three-time MLA from Malviya Nagar, had approached the High Court seeking to set aside Upadhyay's victory in the 2025 Delhi Legislative Assembly elections. The BJP leader had won the seat by a margin of meagre 2,131 votes.

In his petition, Bharti alleged that corrupt practices were adopted during the election campaign, including claims that the BJP candidate had financially supported the Congress candidate Jitender Kumar Kochar to target him and divide votes. However, the Congress candidate was not made a respondent to the petition.

Justice Jasmeet Singh rejected Bharti's petition on the ground of non-joinder of the necessary party, holding that failure to implead a candidate against whom allegations of corrupt practices were made is an incurable defect mandating dismissal under Section 86(1) read with Section 82(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (ROPA).

The Court also rejected Bharti's contention that "accepting money" does not constitute a corrupt practice and thus Kochar was not a necessary party. Relying on the 1958 amendment to Section 123 of ROPA, the Court clarified that the receipt of gratification is indeed a corrupt practice, making the candidate against whom such an allegation is made a necessary party.

In the judgment, Justice Singh observed: “Once a candidate is alleged to have participated in the corrupt practice whether by act, omission, or conspiracy, section 82(b) of the ROPA mandates that such candidate be impleaded as a respondent. Hence, Mr. Kochar was a candidate “against whom” allegations of corrupt practice are made, his inclusion is mandatory to the present election petition. The petitioner's omission to implead Mr. Kochar is not a mere technical lapse but an incurable defect, which as per the provisions of ROPA and the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, strikes at the root of maintainability of the present election petition"

The Court clarified that it is not concerned with the perceived harshness or technicality of the law. However, once a legal position has been conclusively settled by the Supreme Court, it is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the Constitution.

“The Courts, lower in hierarchy to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, cannot dilute or circumvent on considerations of sympathy, equity, or perceived injustice. Judicial discipline demands strict adherence to binding precedent, particularly in election matters where the integrity of the democratic process depends on certainty, finality, and strict compliance with the provisions of the ROPA,” the bench noted.

Rejecting Bharti's argument that the defect could be cured by later amendment or deletion of allegations, the Court held that the election law is a self-contained code and does not permit curing such lapses once the statutory 45-day limitation period has expired.

It added, “The moment an election petition contains allegations of corrupt practice against any candidate, non-joinder of that candidate is fatal, irrespective of whether such allegations are ultimately proved or not.”

Appearance: Mr. Somnath Bharti-in-Person with Mr. Anand Prakash Gautam, Adv. for Petitioner; Mr. Rajiv Nayar, and Mr. Jayant Mehta, Sr. Advs. with Mr. Saurabh Seth, Mr. Sumer Dev Seth, Ms. Neelampreet Kaur, Mr. Abhiroop Rathore, Advs. for Respondent

Case title: Somnath Bharti v. Shri Satish Upadhyay

Case no.: EL.PET. 7/2025

Click here to read order