Rajasthan HC Refuses to Delete Returning Officer and Election Commission from Election Petition Over Contradictory Postal Ballot Counts

Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani held that the Returning Officer and Election Commission of India are necessary parties given contradictory figures for rejected postal ballots issued on the same date.

The Rajasthan High Court, Bench at Jaipur, has dismissed an application filed by the Returning Officer, the District Magistrate-cum-Returning Officer, the Chief Electoral Officer, and the Election Commission of India seeking to be deleted from S.B. Election Petition No. 6/2024. Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani, sitting singly, found that a core factual dispute in the petition — the number of postal ballots rejected during counting — could not be resolved without the participation of these respondents, who had themselves issued the contradictory figures. The order was reserved on 3 July 2026 and pronounced on 28 July 2026.

The Election Dispute and the Application to Delete Respondents

The election petition was filed by Anil Chopra, son of Babu Lal Chopra, arising from the Lok Sabha election in the Jaipur Rural Constituency, Jaipur District. Respondent No. 5 was declared elected with a margin of 1,615 votes over the petitioner.

Respondents 1 to 4 — the Returning Officer, the District Magistrate-cum-Returning Officer, the Chief Electoral Officer, and the Election Commission of India through its Secretary, Rajasthan Zone — filed Application No. 02/2026 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking their deletion from the array of parties. Their counsel argued that under Section 82 and Section 86(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, they were neither necessary nor proper parties to an election petition and therefore could not be impleaded. In support, they placed reliance on Jyoti Basu and Ors. v. Debi Ghosal and Ors. (1982) 1 SCC 691, B. Sundara Rami Reddy v. Election Commission of India and Ors. 1991 Supp (2) SCC 624, Michael B. Fernandes v. C.K. Jaffer Shariff and Ors. (2002) 3 SCC 521, and Shrilal Janva v. Udai Ram Dhakad AIR 1981 Raj 251.

The petitioner opposed the application. His counsel urged that respondents 1 to 4 were necessary parties because the central controversy in the petition concerned information issued by those very respondents, and they alone could clarify the discrepancy.

The Contradictory Postal Ballot Figures at the Heart of the Petition

The petitioner's case rested significantly on a conflict in two sets of official figures, both issued on the same date by respondents 1 to 4.

When the petitioner raised objections before the Returning Officer on 4 June 2024, the Returning Officer recorded in his decision that 1,225 postal ballots had been rejected during counting. However, information supplied to the petitioner under the Right to Information Act by the same respondents stated that the number of rejected postal ballots was 2,738. Both disclosures related to the same day and emanated from respondents 1 to 4.

The winning margin was 1,615 votes. The Returning Officer's own decision at the objection stage had noted that the 1,225 rejected postal ballots were fewer than the winning margin of 1,615, and therefore the result would not be affected. But the RTI response placing the figure at 2,738 — a number that exceeds the winning margin — became the basis for the election petition.

The petitioner also stated that no allegations had been raised against the winning candidate, respondent No. 5. The challenge was directed at the conduct of the electoral process by the returning authorities.

Court's Reasoning on Necessary Party Status

Justice Bharwani heard counsel for both sides and considered the election petition on its averments, along with the precedents cited.

The court accepted the undisputed position that the winning margin between the petitioner and respondent No. 5 was 1,615 votes. It also accepted as established that the Returning Officer's decision of 4 June 2024 recorded the total number of rejected postal ballots as 1,225, while the RTI response from the same respondents disclosed the figure as 2,738. Both pieces of information were issued on the same date by respondents 1 to 4, and the principal dispute between the parties turned on this very point.

The court reasoned that given the nature of the controversy — entirely centred on conflicting official figures supplied by respondents 1 to 4 — their presence was necessary for adjudication of the petition. The court held that retaining them would assist in the decision of the petition. It therefore declined to accept the argument that they were neither necessary nor proper parties.

The court's refusal to apply the exclusionary principle under Section 82 and Section 86(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 in this situation rested on the factual specificity of the dispute: the contradiction was not peripheral but was the foundation of the challenge, and the respondents seeking deletion were the source of both the conflicting figures.

Outcome

Application No. 02/2026, filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by respondents 1 to 4 seeking their deletion from the cause title of S.B. Election Petition No. 6/2024, was dismissed. Respondents 1 to 4 — the Returning Officer, the District Magistrate-cum-Returning Officer for Jaipur Rural Constituency, the Chief Electoral Officer Jaipur, and the Election Commission of India through its Secretary, Rajasthan Zone — remain parties to the election petition.