Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Sh. Babu Lal vs Sh. Mukesh Kumar Ahlawat And Anr on 15 October, 2025

                          $~45
                          *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +    EL.PET. 3/2025
                               SH. BABU LAL                                  .....Petitioner
                                              Through: Mr. Brahmanand Gupta, Advocate.

                                                                  versus

                                    SH. MUKESH KUMAR AHLAWAT AND ANR. .....Respondents
                                                 Through: Mr. Bharat Bhushan and Mr. Aakash
                                                          Jain, Advocates for R1.
                                                          Mr. Sidhant Kumar, Mr. Parth Yadav,
                                                          Mr. Om Batra and Ms. Shagun
                                                          Chopra, Advocates for R2.

                                    CORAM:
                                    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
                                                 ORDER

% 15.10.2025 EL.PET. 3/2025

1. This is an Election Petition filed under Section 80, 81 and 100 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 ("Act") against the election of Respondent No. 1 from AC-10, Sultan Pur Majra Constituency Delhi seeking declaration that the election of Respondent No. 1 to be null and void.

2. The notice was issued in this Petition on 18.02.2025, returnable on 29.05.2025. On 29.05.2025, Respondent No. 2 had filed the Applications being I.A. Nos. 13949/2025 and 13950/2025, in which the notice was issued by this Court and response was directed to be filed before the next date of hearing.

3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has not filed the Reply to these Applications.

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/10/2025 at 23:40:56

4. The learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 seeks time to file the Reply to the EL.PET. 3/2025. Let the same be filed within a period of four weeks from date. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within a period of two weeks thereafter.

5. List on 06.02.2026.

6. This is an Application for seeking release of Electronic Voting Machines ("EVMs"), Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail Machines ("VVPAT Machines") and Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail Slips ("VVPAT Slips") by Respondent No. 2.

7. The learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 has submitted that the preservation of EVMs, VVPAT Machines and VVPAT Slips will cause unnecessary public expenditure for no effective purpose.

8. It is submitted that the EVMs and VVPAT Machines are technical devices that require periodic maintenance, storage and software updates and their prolonged retention could lead to degradation, rendering them unfit for use in future elections.

9. The learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 submits that Respondent No. 2 shall preserve all records with regard to the nomination papers in relation to the election in question in this Petition.

10. In view of the same, the learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 prays that Respondent No. 2 may be permitted to use the EVMs, VVPAT Machines and VVPAT Slips as used in the Assembly Constituency-10, Sultan Pur Majra Constituency Delhi for the Legislative Assembly Elections in the future elections irrespective of the pendency of this Petition.

11. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has no objection for the above EL.PET. 3/2025 Page 2 of 5 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/10/2025 at 23:40:56 prayer.

12. Accordingly, the present Application is allowed and the EVMs, VVPAT Machines and VVPAT Slips are released and are permitted to be used for future elections.

13. The Application stands disposed of.

14. This is an Application filed under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking deletion of Respondent No. 2 from the array of Parties in this Petition.

15. The learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 submitted that the Petitioner has arrayed the Chief Electoral Officer as Respondent No. 2 in the Memo of Parties, however, in the pleadings, the Petitioner has referred to the Returning Officer as Respondent No. 2.

16. The learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 further submitted that Section 82 of the Act permits only the returned candidate and other candidates to be arrayed as respondents in an election petition. Therefore, the Chief Electoral Officer as well as the Returning Officer ought to be deleted from the array of Parties in the present Petition.

17. Section 82 of the Act provides that:

"82. Parties of the petition.--A petitioner shall join as respondents to his petition--

(a) where the petitioner, in addition to claiming declaration that the election of all or any of the returned candidates is void, claims a further declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected, all the contesting candidates other than the petitioner, and where no such further declaration is claimed, all the returned candidates; and

(b) any other candidate against whom allegations of any corrupt practice are made in the petition."

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/10/2025 at 23:40:56

18. The learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 further invited this Court's attention to two decisions of the Supreme Court that directly address the issue raised in the present Application. In the case of Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal, (1982) 1 SCC 691, the Supreme Court took the view that an election dispute is not an action under common law nor in equity and it is a statutory proceeding, and therefore, governed by the provisions of the statute under which the remedy is provided. The Supreme Court held that:

"9. .... It is equally significant that while any candidate not already a respondent may seek and, if he so seeks, is entitled to be joined as a respondent under Section 86(4), any other person cannot, under that provision seek to be joined as a respondent, even if allegations of any corrupt practice are made against him. It is clear that the contest of the election petition is designed to be confined to the candidates at the election. All others are excluded. The ring is closed to all except the petitioner and the candidates at the election. If such is the design of the staturte, how can the notion of "proper parties" enter the picture at all? We think that the concept of "proper parties" 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."

[Emphasis Supplied]

19. The Supreme Court in the case of B. Sundara Rami Reddy v. Election Commission of India, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 624 held that:

"...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 EL.PET. 3/2025 Page 4 of 5 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/10/2025 at 23:40:56 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."

[Emphasis Supplied]

20. In view of the above, the law as settled in Jyoti Basu (supra) and B. Sundara Rami Reddy (supra) clearly provides that a person who is not a candidate may not be joined as a respondent to an election petition. Respondent No. 2 is, accordingly, liable to be struck off from the array of Parties in the present Petition.

21. For the reasons stated above, this Application stands allowed. Respondent No. 2 is deleted from the array of Parties.

22. The Petitioner shall file the amended Memo of Parties within a period of two weeks from date.

23. The Application stands disposed of.

TEJAS KARIA, J OCTOBER 15, 2025/sms EL.PET. 3/2025 Page 5 of 5 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/10/2025 at 23:40:56