- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
B. Sundara Rami Reddy v. Election Commission Of India And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner was declared elected to the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly from the Attakur Constituency after polling on 29 November 1989. The second respondent, an unsuccessful candidate, filed an election petition in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh challenging both the petitioner’s election and an Election Commission of India (ECI) order dated 22 November 1989 that had declared polling at the Bhogasamudram polling station void and directed a re-poll.
In that election petition, the ECI was impleaded as a respondent. The Commission applied to be deleted from the array of parties on the ground that it was not a necessary party. A learned Single Judge of the High Court, by order dated 13 November 1990, allowed the application and directed the ECI’s deletion. The present special-leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution challenges that High Court order.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the Election Commission of India is a necessary party to an election petition when its order is under challenge.
- Whether, even if not necessary, the ECI can be joined as a proper party to an election petition by invoking the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The Election Commission should at least be treated as a proper party because its order was specifically impugned in the election petition.
- Section 87 of the Representation of the People Act applies the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, to the trial of election petitions; hence the CPC concept of a “proper party” (even if not necessary) should permit joinder of the ECI.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| K. Venkateswara Rao v. Bekkam Narasimha Reddi, AIR 1969 SC 872; (1969) 1 SCR 679 | Order I Rule 10 CPC cannot be used to add parties in an election petition except as permitted by Section 86(4) of the Act. | Cited to reinforce that no addition of parties (beyond those specified in the Act) is permissible in an election petition. |
| Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal, (1982) 1 SCC 691; (1982) 3 SCR 318 | Concept of “proper party” is alien to election disputes under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. | Relied on to hold that persons or authorities not enumerated in Sections 82 or 86(4) cannot be joined, however desirable it may seem. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court began with Section 82 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which exhaustively specifies who must be joined as respondents to an election petition: (i) the returned candidate, and (ii) where a declaration is sought that the election petitioner or any other candidate be declared elected, all contesting candidates. No authority or person beyond those categories is required to be joined.
The Court then examined Section 87, which applies the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, to election-petition trials only “subject to the provisions of this Act.” Because Section 82 is a specific provision governing joinder, it overrides the broader, general joinder provisions of the CPC. Consequently, CPC concepts such as “proper party” cannot be imported into election-petition proceedings.
Relying on K. Venkateswara Rao (1969) and Jyoti Basu (1982), the Court held that addition of parties, whether necessary or proper, is permissible only in the limited circumstances expressly mentioned in the Act (e.g., Section 86(4)). As the Election Commission does not fall within those statutory categories, it cannot be joined.
Therefore, the High Court correctly concluded that the ECI was neither a necessary nor a proper party and rightly ordered its deletion from the array of parties.
Holding and Implications
Petition dismissed.
The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s order deleting the Election Commission of India from the election petition. The immediate effect is that the election petition will proceed without the ECI as a respondent. The decision reiterates the closed list of parties permissible in election petitions under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, confirming that the concept of a “proper party” under the Civil Procedure Code does not extend to election disputes. No new legal doctrine is created; the judgment reinforces existing precedent on joinder limitations in election litigation.
Order
1. This petition under Article 136 of the Constitution is directed against the order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated November 13, 1990 holding that the Election Commission of India is not a necessary or proper party to the election petition.
2. The petitioner was declared elected as a Member of the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly from Attakur Constituency of Nellore District in the elections held on November 29, 1989. K. Anjaneya Reddy, respondent 2, the unsuccessful candidate filed an election petition before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad calling in question the petitioner's election. In the election petition respondent 2 challenged validity of the order of the Election Commission dated November 22, 1989 declaring the polling at Bhogasamudram polling station as void and directing re-poll at that polling station. Respondent 2 impleaded the Election Commission of India as one of the respondents to the election petition. The Election Commission made application before the High Court for deleting it from array of the parties on the ground that it was not a necessary party. The petitioner contested the application of the Election Commission. The High Court by its order dated November 13, 1990 held that the Election Commission was neither necessary nor a proper party. Accordingly, it issued direction for the deletion of the Election Commission of India from the array of parties. The petitioner has challenged the order of the High Court by means of this petition.
3. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner we do not find any merit in the petition. Section 82 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 specifies the persons who are required to be joined as respondents to an election petition. Under this provision the returned candidate is a necessary party as a respondent and where relief for a declaration is claimed that the election petitioner, or any other candidate be duly elected, all the contesting candidates are necessary to be impleaded as respondents to the petition. No other person or authority except as aforesaid is required to be impleaded as a respondent to an election petition under the Act. The Election Commission of India is therefore not a necessary party to an election petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that even if the Election Commission may not be a necessary party, it was a proper party since its orders have been challenged in the election petition. He further urged that since Civil Procedure Code, 1908 is applicable to trial of an election petition the concept of proper party is applicable to the trial of election petition. We find no merit in the contention. Section 87 of the Act lays down that subject to the provisions of the Act and any rules made thereunder, every election petition shall be tried by the High Court, as nearly as may be in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to the trial of suits. Provisions of the Civil Procedure Code have thus been made applicable to the trial of an election petition to a limited extent as would appear from the expression “subject to the provisions of this Act”. Since Section 82 designates the persons who are to be joined as respondents to the petition, provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 relating to the joinder of parties stands excluded. Under the Code even if a party is not necessary party, he is required to be joined as a party to a suit or proceedings if such person is a proper party, but the Representation of the People Act, 1951 does not provide for joinder of a proper party to an election petition. The concept of joining a proper party to an election petition is ruled out by the provisions of the Act. The concept of joinder of a proper party to a suit or proceeding underlying Order I of the Civil Procedure Code cannot be imported to the trial of election petition, in view of the express provisions of Sections 82 and 87 of the Act. The Act is a self-contained Code which does not contemplate joinder of a person or authority to an election petition on the ground of proper party. In K. Venkateswara Rao v. Bekkam Narasimha Reddi AIR 1969 SC 872, (1969) 1 SCR 679, this Court while discussing the application of Order I Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code to an election petition held that there could not be any addition of parties in the case of an election petition except under the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 86 of the Act. Again in Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal (1982) 1 SCC 691, (1982) 3 SCR 318, this Court held that the concept of ‘proper party’ 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 Section 82 and Section 86(4) and no others. However desirable and expedient it may appear to be, none else shall be joined as respondents.
5. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the view taken by the High Court is correct and it does not call for any interference. The petition fails and it is, accordingly, dismissed.
Alert