GADNIS BHAWANI SHANKAR versus FALEIRO EDUARDO MARTINHO

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 77 · Decided: 01-08-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND, R.C. LAHOTI, K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

GADNIS BHAWANI SHANKAR 
A 
v. 
FALEIRO EDUARDO MARTINHO 
AUGUST I, 2000 
[DR. A.S. ANAND, CJ., R.C. LAHOTI AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.] 
B 
Election Law : 
Represenlation of the People Act, 1951 : 
Section 82(b )-Election-Election petition-Corrupt practice-Commis-
C 
sion of-Party-respondent-Joining of-A candidate allegedly committed cor-
rupt practice qfter withdrawal of his candidature-But he was not impleaded 
as a party-respondent-Validity of-Held, even though a person commits a· 
corrupt practice after withdrawal of his candidature he must still be impleaded 
as a party-respondent-Otherwise the election petition will fail. 
D 
Section 123(1 )( B )-Corrupt practice-Meaning of-Election petition 
averred that a candidate agreed to receive gratification as a motive or reward 
for voting in favour of the returned candidate-Held, these averments anwunt 
to allegation of commission of corrupt practice. 
Words and Phrases : 
"Corrupt practice"-Meaning of in the context of S.123(1)(B) of the 
Representation of the People Act, 1951. 
E 
There were three candidates for the Rajya Sabha elections including 
F 
the appellant and the respondent. All the three candidates filed their 
nomination papers, which were accepted. However, the third candidate 
withdrew from the contest after acceptance of his nomination paper. In the 
contest held thereafter the respondent was elected. 
The appellant filed an election petition, challenging the election of 
G 
the respondent, principally on the ground of commission of corrupt prac-
tices. In the election petition the respondent alone was arrayed as a party-
respondent, in which it was averred that the third candidate, after with-
drawal of his candidature, agreed to receive gratification as a motive or 
reward for voting in favour of the respondent. 
H 
77 
78 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000] supP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
High Court dismissed the election petition under Section 82(b) of the 
B 
c 
Representation of the People Act, 1951 on the ground that the third candi-
date, against whom alle~ations of corrupt practice were made, was not 
joined as a respondent. Hence this appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that since the third 
candidate had withdrawn from the contest, he could not be treated as a 
'candidate', who was necessarily required to be impleaded as a party-
respondent under Section 82(b) of the Act and if the corrupt practice was 
committed by him as a voter only, he was not required to be impleaded as 
a party-respondent in the election petition. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The election petition contains allegations against the third 
candidate that he agreed to receive gratification as a motive or reward for 
voting in favour of the respondent. These averments would amount to 
D 
allegations of corrupt practice by the third candidate within the meaning 
of Section 123(l)(B) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. [81-F] 
2.1. The allegations, which have been made in the election petition, 
are allegations of corrupt practice against the third candidate. Since, the 
third candidate was a nominated candidate, it was necessary to itnplead 
E 
him as party-respondent under Section 82(b) of Act, irrespective of the 
fact that before the actual date of the election, he had withdrawn his 
candidature and allegedly committed the corrupt practice after his with-
drawal from the election. [83-E] 
F 
2.2. A candidate who is duly nominated continues to be a candidate 
for the purposes of Section 82(b) in spite of his withdrawal and, if allega-
tions of corrupt practice are made against him, he must be impleaded as a 
party to the election petition or the election petition must fail. [83-C] 
Har Swarup v. Brij Bhushan Saran, [1967] 1 SCR 342; Ram Pratap 
G 
Chandel v. Chaudhary lt(ija Ram, [1998] 8 SCC 564 and Mohan Raj v. 
Surendra Kumar Taparia & Ors., [1969] 1 SCR 630, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3224 of 2000. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.3.2000 of the Bombay High Court 
H 
in E.P. No. 2 of 1999. 
GADNIS BHAWANI SHANK.AR v. FALEIRO EDUARDO MARTINHO 
79 
M.N. Krishnamani, K.V. Vishwanathan and Shiv Sagar Tiwari for the 
A 
Appellant. 
F.S. Nariman, S. Ganesh, K.J. John, Ms. Mayuri Nayyar for M/s. K.J. 
John & Co. for the Respondent. 
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered : 
Would the provisions of Section 82(b) of the Representation of the 
People Act, 1951 get attracted to a candidate who allegedly com

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.