The Rajasthan High Court has declined to remove election authorities from an election petition concerning the Jaipur Rural Lok Sabha election, holding that their presence is necessary where the central dispute turns on contradictory official figures relating to rejected postal ballots.
The Court was dealing with an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking deletion of the Returning Officer, the District Magistrate-cum-Returning Officer, the Chief Electoral Officer and the Election Commission of India from the array of parties. The application was opposed on the ground that the disputed figures had been issued by these very authorities.
Contradictory Postal Ballot Figures at the Heart of the Dispute
The election petition challenges the result in which the winning candidate secured victory by a margin of 1,615 votes. During consideration of an objection, the Returning Officer recorded that 1,225 postal ballots had been rejected during counting.
Subsequently, information furnished under the Right to Information Act showed the number of rejected postal ballots as 2,738. Both sets of information were issued by the same election authorities and related to the same day. The difference was significant because the higher figure exceeded the winning margin.
Election Authorities Held Necessary Parties
The election authorities argued that they were neither necessary nor proper parties under Sections 82 and 86(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, relying on decisions including Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal, B. Sundara Rami Reddy v. Election Commission of India and Michael B. Fernandes v.
C.K. Jaffer Shariff.
The High Court, however, found that the conflicting figures were not a peripheral issue but formed the core of the dispute between the parties. Since the contradictory information had emanated from respondents 1 to 4, their presence would assist the Court in adjudicating the controversy.
Application for Deletion Dismissed
The Court therefore rejected the application under Section 151 CPC seeking deletion of respondents 1 to 4. The election authorities will continue as parties to the election petition, enabling the Court to examine the dispute concerning the contradictory postal-ballot figures.
Case Details
Case: S.B. Election Petition No. 6/2024
URN: EP / 11U / 2024
Counsel for Respondents: Sr. Adv. R.B. Mathur, Adv. Falak Mathur and other counsel
