CPC Cannot Override RP Act In Election Petitions; Only Parties Specified Under Section 82 Can Be Impleaded: J&&L High Court
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
5 Jun 2026 8:40 PM IST
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure which is contrary to the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 cannot be made applicable to the trial of election petitions.
Since Section 82 of the Act of 1951 provides as to which persons are to be impleaded as respondents to an election petition, anything contrary to Section 82 contained in the CPC cannot be invoked to implead a person as a party to an election petition who otherwise cannot be impleaded as a respondent in terms of Section 82, the Court explained.
The Court was hearing an election petition filed by Harsh Dev Singh, wherein a preliminary issue was raised regarding misjoinder of parties. The petitioner had impleaded not only the contesting candidates but also respondents No. 1 to 9, who were officials and officers against whom allegations of impropriety were leveled in the election petition.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar, while observing that “the concept of 'proper parties' is and would remain alien to an election dispute under the Act,” held that “only those parties, who are mentioned in Section 82 of the Act of 1951 and no others, have to be impleaded as respondents to the election petition.”
In his petition the petitioner contended that under Section 87 of the Act, the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure applies to election petitions, and therefore all necessary and proper parties must be impleaded. The petitioner further relied on Section 99(1)(a)(ii) of the Act, which provides that persons proved to have been guilty of corrupt practice have to be named, arguing that even officers and officials against whom allegations of corrupt practice are made must be impleaded.
Respondent No. 10 raised a preliminary objection that there was misjoinder of parties, contending that under Section 82 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, only contesting candidates can be impleaded as parties to an election petition.
Court's Observation:
The Court examined Section 82 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which mandates that a petitioner shall join as respondents (a) where a further declaration of election is claimed, all contesting candidates other than the petitioner, where no such further declaration is claimed, all returned candidates; and (b) any other candidate against whom allegations of any corrupt practice are made in the petition.
The Court then referred to Section 87(1), which provides that every election petition shall be tried by the High Court, as nearly as may be, in accordance with the procedure applicable under the CPC, subject to the provisions of the Act and any rules made thereunder.
Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Joyti Basu v. Debi Ghosal (1982 (1) SCC 691), the Court observed that the contest of an election petition is designed to be confined to the candidates at the election, and all others are excluded. The Supreme Court had held,
“... The ring is closed to all except the petitioner and the candidates at the election. If such is the design of the statute, how can the notion of 'proper parties' enter the picture at all? We think that the concept of 'proper parties' is and must remain alien to an election dispute under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Only those may be joined as respondents to an election petition who are mentioned in Sec. 82 and Sec. 86 (4) and no others. However desirable and expedient it may appear to be, none else shall be joined as respondents.”
The Court further noted that Section 87 of the Act applies the CPC procedure only subject to the provisions of the Act. Therefore, anything contained in the CPC which is contrary to the provisions of the Act of 1951 cannot be made applicable to the trial of election petitions. Since Section 82 specifically provides which persons are to be impleaded as respondents, anything contrary to Section 82 contained in the CPC cannot be invoked, the Court underscored.
On the petitioner's reliance on Section 99(1)(a)(ii) (which requires naming persons found guilty of corrupt practice at the final stage), the Court referred to the Supreme Court's clarification in Joyti Basu that a person not a candidate is given an opportunity to show cause against being “named” only at the end of the trial, and that the right does not extend to participation at all stages. The Supreme Court had observed that permitting such persons to be impleaded at the threshold could cause needless vexation to public personages and would be against public interest.
Applying this to the facts, the Court held that mere leveling of allegations against respondents No. 1 to 9 (officials/officers) would not make them necessary parties to the election petition. In the face of Section 82 and the interpretation given by the Supreme Court, they should not have been impleaded. Therefore, misjoinder of parties was established, the Court opined.
However, citing B.S. Yadiyurappa v. Mahalingappa (2002 (1) SCC 301), the Court held that non-compliance with Section 82 does not necessarily entail dismissal of the election petition and it can be amended by striking out the additionally impleaded parties.
The Court thus held that there was misjoinder of parties in the present petition. Accordingly, a direction was issued for deletion of respondents No. 1 to 9 from the array of parties. The matter was listed for further proceedings.
Case Title: Harsh Dev Singh v. UT of J&K & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)
