LexSHIV CHAND versus UJAGAR SINGH & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E G H 520 SHIV CHAND v. UJAGAR SINGH & ANR. August 31, 1978 (V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND D. A. DESAI, JJ.] Election Petition-Joinder of parties-Whether an Election Co11rt c111: reject an application made under s. 86(4) of the Representation of the Peorlz Act, 1951 by a duly nominated candidate who has retired froni the conte:.;t-Public policy behinds. 82(b) of the Apt-In a petition alleging corrupt practice, randi- datt:s alleged of corrupt practice must be arraye<l a.f respondents-U'ord\' ru~d phrases s.a candidate'' in s. 86(4) includes a ri.onlinated candidate. In the electiDn petition the appellant, a defeated candidate in the G;;neral Elections held in. June, 1977, challenged the election of Respon<len~ Ne. l making, inter alia, allegations constituting a corrupt practice against the return- ed candidate and also Respondent No. 2 a duly nominated candidate v,.ho y,·as one among those retired from the contest. An interlocutory application 1nadc by the petitioner/appellant under Order 1 Rule 10(2), Order 6 Rule 17 and S. 151 of the Civil Procedure Ccxle seeking to implead Respondent !\o. '2 or 10 the alternative permission for deletion of the allegation of corrupt practice against Respondent No. 2 <.6 well as the motion made by Respondi:nt No. 2 under s. 86(4) of the Act to implead him as a respondent were rejected by the High Court. The Election Petition was also dismissed for non-joinder ct Res- pondent No. 2 as a necessary party at -the first instance and before the pr-:limi- nary objection was raised in the written statement. Allowing the appeal by speci<l'l leave the Court, 1-IELD ~ ( 1) When the text is plain, in the absence of compelling r.!a.son'i, ,there is no ju.stification for truncating its sense. Section 82(b) requir.:s the ·presence of every candidate against whom a corrupt practice has been alleged. What is imperative is the presence as a respondent of such a candid<Lte. not ho\v or at whos~ instance he has been joined as a respondent [523 c·~D] Tht) purpose is two fold. When injurious averments are made against a candidate natural justice ne~itates his being given an opportunity to meet those charges, because the consequence of such averments being upheld may be disastrous for such candidate. Secondly, in the absence of the party against who1n charges have been levelled the reality of the. adversary system \~·ill be n1issed. Above all, the constituency is vitally concerned with the invl!stigation into the proof or disproof of corrupt practices· of candidates at elections. Thus, the public policy behind s. 82(b) is the compulsive presence of a candidate against whom corrupt practice has been imputed. It is of no consequence \Vhethcr he has been joined at his own instance or by the election petitioner. f523 E-F] (2) "Any candidate ..... shall .... be entitled to be joined as a respondent", in the clear wording of s. 86(4) of the Act, entitles respondent No. ~ t..:i be joined as a respondent, he. being a candidate in the General Elections. H: is a necessa-ry party since a corrupt practice was imputed to him. [522 G. 523 .8-C] (3) S. 86(1) states that the High Court shall dismiss an election petition ~:hich does not comply with the provisions of s. 82. The test is wheth:r tht; ' • - SHIV CHAND v. UJAGAR SINGH (Krishna Iyer, J.) 521 eh,ction petition complies with the provisions of s. 82, not whether the election A petitioner has failed to comply with s. 82. The substance of the matter must govern, because hypertechnicality, when the public policy of the statute is ful· filled, cannot be permitted to play the procedural tyrant to defeat a vital judicial process, namely, investigation into the merits of the case. If respondent No. 2 is in1pleaded, the election petition, in this case cannot be dismissed under s. 86( I) of the Act. [523 H, 524 A-BJ ( 4) The refusal of the Court to implead Sri Mal Singh is illegal and based on a misinterpretation of the provisions of the sections, of the Act. [524 C] B ~ ~ ) ... (a) S. 86(4) cannot be read down to cover any such candidates as are not • required to be implcaded as respondents under s. 82 of the Act. The gram- matical constn1ction of "any candidate" does not admit of such a narrow and artificial meaning. Shri Mal Singh, having been a candidate is one entitled to C come within s. 86(4). On his application the Court shall implead him. In this vie'Mi· the question of substantial co
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.