Devendra Patel v. Ram Pal Singh & Ors.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: R. M. Lodha
Madan B. Lokur
Judgment Date: 2013-09-06
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal dismissed.
Final Disposition: Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Devendra Patel

Respondents

Ram Pal Singh & Ors.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Saurabh Suman Sinha
• Gaurav Agrawal

Counsels for Respondents

• Vikramjit Banerjee
• S.S. Shamshery
• V.M. Vishnu
• R.C. Kohli

Case Synopsis & Summary

This appeal concerns the interpretation of the definitions of 'candidate' under Sections 79(b) and 82(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Devendra Patel, the appellant, challenges the Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision in an election petition that Jaswant Singh, whose nomination was rejected on the ground of disqualification, could not be treated as a 'candidate' for the purposes of Section 82(b). The core issue is whether a person whose nomination has been rejected due to disqualification can still be regarded as a 'candidate' within the meaning of Section 79(b) so as to be a party under Section 82(b) and thereby require joining as a respondent in the petition. The Supreme Court holds that a person whose nomination is rejected on disqualification cannot be considered a 'duly nominated candidate' and therefore cannot be treated as a 'candidate' under either Section 79(b) or Section 82(b). Consequently, Jaswant Singh cannot be deemed a candidate for the purposes of the election petition. The Court approves the High Court’s approach and distinguishes the Mohan Raj decision, which dealt with withdrawal of nomination rather than disqualification. It also relies on Mithilesh Kumar Sinha as a reference for the principle that a disqualified nominee cannot be treated as a candidate. The appeal is dismissed, with no order as to costs.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 79(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951Section 82(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that Jaswant Singh, whose nomination was rejected on the ground of disqualification, must be regarded as a 'candidate' for the purpose of Section 82(b). Since he has not been joined as a party respondent in the election petition, there could be a fatal defect of non-joinder, warranting rejection of the petition. The argument hinges on the broad definition of 'candidate' in Section 79(b) as a person who has been or claims to have been duly nominated.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents, upholding the High Court, rely on Mithilesh Kumar Sinha to hold that a person whose nomination has been rejected as disqualified cannot be considered a 'candidate' for the purpose of Section 82(b). They contend that Mohan Raj is distinguishable because it involved withdrawal of nomination, not disqualification, and therefore has no application to the present case.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Mithilesh Kumar Sinha v. Returning Officer for Presidential Election and Ors.	AIR 1993 SC 20; 1992 (1) Suppl. SCR 651	Positive	The Court relied on Mithilesh Kumar Sinha as authority for the principle that a nomination rejected on disqualification cannot be treated as a duly nominated candidate, supporting the decision that Jaswant Singh is not a 'candidate' under Sec. 79(b) and thus not covered by Sec. 82(b).
Mohan Raj v. Surendra Kumar Taparia and Ors.	(1969) 1 SCR 630	Distinguished	The Court distinguished Mohan Raj on the grounds that it dealt with withdrawal of nomination rather than disqualification; thus its reasoning does not apply to a nomination rejected on grounds of disqualification.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

[2013] 10 S.C.R. 291 A ## DEVENDRA PATEL _v._ ## RAM PAL SINGH & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 7907 of 2013) SEPTEMBER 6; 2013 B [R.M. LODHA AND MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.] - _Representation of the People Act, 1951 s. 79(b) and_ - _82(b) Person whose nomination rejected, whether can be_ - _considered as a 'candidate' for the purpose of s.82(b) Held: Where nomination of person is rejected on the ground of such person being disqualified, he is neither a duly nominated candidate nor he can claim to be duly nominated candidate, within the meaning of s. 79(b)_ ~ _Therefore, he cannot be considered as 'candidate' for the purpose of s.82(b)._ The question for consideration in the present appeal was whether the person whose nomination was rejected, must be considered as a 'candidate' for the purpose of s. 82(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. C D E Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: The question whether a person is a '.candidate' for the purpose of Section 82(b) of Representation of the People Act, 1951 would depend on whether he is a 'candidate' within the meaning of Section 79(b). Since nomination of 'J' was, rejected as he was / disqualified, he cannot be considered to be duly nominated as a candidate at the election. The expression "claims to have been duly nominated as a candidate at any election" in Section 79(b) of the 1951 Act, would not take within its fold a person whose nomination has been rejected as being disqualified. Thus, where the nomination of a person is rejected by the returning officer F G H 291 292 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 10 S.C.R. A on the ground of such person being disqualified, such person is neither a duly nominated candidate nor he can claim to be duly nominated as a candidate. In view of this position, 'J' is not covered by the expression 'candidate' in either of the two categories within the meaning of B Section 79(b). Therefore, 'J' cannot be treated as a 'candidate' for the purpose of Section 82(b) of the 1951 Act. [Paras 5, 8, 9 and 1 OJ [293-E; 294-D-F; 295-B-D] c ' _Mohan Raj vs. Surendra Kumar Taparia and Ors._ (1969) 1· SCR 630 - distinguished. _Mithilesh Kumar Sinha vs. Returning Officer for Presidentia/Election and Ors._ AIR 1993 SC 20: 1992 (1) - Suppl. SCR 651 referred to. D Case Law Reference: · (1969) 1 SCR 630 distinguished Para. 9 1992 (1) Suppl. SCR 651 referred to Para 3 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. E 7907 of 2013. From the Judgment and Order dated 26.08.2010 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Bench at Jabalpur in Election Petition No. 16 of 2009. F Saurabh Suman Sinha, Gaurav Agrawal for the Appellant. • Vikramjit Banerjee, S.S. Shamshery, V.M. Vishnu, R.C. Kohli for the Respondent. G .The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.M. LODH~, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The only argument canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant is that Jaswant Singh whose nomination was H rejected must be regarded as a 'candidate' for the purpose # DEVENDRA PATEL _v._ RAM PAL SINGH & ORS. 293 [R.M. LODHA, J.] of Section 82(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short, '1951 Act') and since he has not been joined as a party respondent in the election petition although there is allegation of corrupt practice against him, the election petition is liable to be rejected. 3. The High Court has considered this question and, relying upon the decision of this Court in _Mithilesh Kumar Sinha Vs. Returning Officer for Presidential Election_ & _Others[1] ,_ held that Jaswant Singh could not be regarded as a 'candidate' as defined in Section 79(b) for the purpose of Section 82(b) and overruled the objection regarding non-joinder of Jaswant Singh. 4. The admitted fact is that Jaswant Singh's nomination was rejected by the returning officer as he w.as ·found to be disqualified. Jaswant Singh challenged the order of the returning officer rejecting his nomination in a Writ Petition before the High Court, but that Writ Petition was not taken to the logical conclusion and it was dismissed. 5. The question is, whether Jaswant Singh is a 'candidate' for the purpose of Section 82(b) ? The answer to this would depend on whether he is a 'candidate' within the meaning of Section 79(b). A B C D E 6. Section 79(b) reads as follows :- F "79. Definitions.? In this Part and in Part VII unless the context otherwise requires,- (a) xx x (b) "candidate" means a person who has been or claims to have been duly nominated as a candidate at any election; (c) xx x 1. AIR 1993 SC 20. G H 294 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 10 S.C.R. A (d) xx x (e) xx x (f) xx B 7. Section 82(b) reads as under:- "82. Parties to the petition.? A petitioner shall join as respondents to his petitioner ? (a) xx x •• c (b) any other candidate against whom allegations of any corrupt practice are made in the petition." 8. In our opinion, in view of the admitted position that 0[Jaswant ][Singh's ][nomination ][was ][rejected ][as ][he ][was ] disqualified, he cannot be considered to be duly nominated as a candidate at the election. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that his contention is founded on the expression "claims to have been duly nominated as a candidate at any election" in Section 79(b) of the 1951 Act. The expression E "claims to have been duly nominated as a candidate" would not take within its fold a person whose nomination has been rejected as being disqualified. Such person cannot claim to be duly nominated as a candidate when he is not qualified to contest election. In view of this position, Jaswant Singh is not F covered by the expression 'candidate' in either of the two categories within the meaning of Section 79(b). 9. Learned counsel for the appellant relies upon a decision of this Court in _Mohan Raj Vs. Surendra Kumar Taparia_ & G _Ors._[2 ] in support of his contention. _Mohan Raj2_ was a case where one R.D. Periwal who was duly nominated candidate but withdrew his nomination later was not joined as a party in the election petition though allegations of corrupt practice against him were made. This Court held that a candidate who is duly - H 2. (1969) 1 scr 630. DEVENDRA PATEL _v._ RAM PAL SINGH & ORS. 29$ [R.M. LODHA, J.] nominated continues to be candidate for the purpose of Section A 82(b) in spite of withdrawal. There is an Important difference between that case and this case. In that case, R.D. Periwal was dujy nominated candidate but he withdrew later, whereas here Jaswant Singh's nomination was rejected as he was found to be disqualified. For this crucial and compelling difference, B the statement of law in _Mohan Raj2_ has no application. Where the nomination of a person is rejected by the returning officer on the ground of such person being disqualified, in our view, such person is neither a duly nominated candidate nor he can claim to be duly nominated as a candidate. C C 10. The High Court did not commit any error in not treating Jaswant Singh as a 'candidate' for the purpose of Section 82(b) of the 1951 Act. 11. Appeal is disrnisse~ with no order as to costs. o K.K.T. Appeal dismissed.