Delhi High Court Dismisses Appeal Against Order Rejecting Challenge To JDU's Internal Elections Electing Nitish Kumar As President

Yadav challenged the internal party elections conducted in 2016, 2019 and 2022 on the ground that they were in breach of the party's constitution. He was aggrieved by the changes notified by JDU to the ECI regarding amendments in its list of office bearers through a series of correspondences from 2016 to 2021. It was his case that the changes were made in violation of Section 29(A)(9) of the Representation of Peoples Act (RP Act).

He challenged the election of Nitish Kumar by the forum of National Executive, subsequent ratification and the letter submitted by JDU to the ECI in 2016.

The single bench had observed that the petition lacked merit and fell outside the jurisdictional scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In the appeal, the appellant's counsel contended that it is the ECI's duty to conduct an inquiry if the information regarding the election or any other material matter communicated to the ECI is objected to. He argued that the ECI is not only vested with the power to conduct such an inquiry under Section 29A (9), but rather it is mandatory for the ECI to conduct an inquiry in case of any objections.

For context, Section 29A (9) of the RP Act provides that after an association or body has been registered as a political party, any change in its name, head office, office-bearers, address or in any other material matters should be communicated to the ECI without delay.

A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela however did not agree with the appellant's contention and observed that no adjudicatory authority was intended by the legislature to be provided to the ECI under Section 29A (9) of RP Act.

The Court noted that the legislative intent for mandating submission of information relating to change in the name and office bearers under Section 29A(9) of the RP Act is for maintaining proper and up to date record of the political party registered by the ECI.

It stated “A plain reading of Section 29A of the RP Act would suggest that the legislative scheme provided therein is for the purposes of registration of an association or a body as political party. In our considered opinion, sub-Section 9 of Section 29A of the RP Act is, thus, to be construed within the broader legislative scheme of Section 29A of the RP Act. Since Section 29A of the RP Act provides for registration of an association or a body as a political party, we are of the unambiguous view that requirement of submission of information relating to change in the name and office bearers etc., as contemplated in sub-Section 9 of Section 29A of the RP Act, is for the purposes of maintaining proper and up to date record of the political party registered by the ECI.”

The Court remarked that the appellant's argument sought the Court to supply 'certain words and phrases which are otherwise absent in the said provision'. It stated that the appellant sought to give interpretation which is not expressly available in Section 29A(9) i.e, the appellant sought to adopt the golden rule of interpretation. The Court was of the view that as the language and words used in Section 29A(9) are plain and simple, the golden rule of interpretation need not be applied.

The Court thus agreed with the single judge's order that the nature of reliefs sought was outside the scope of Section 29A (9) of the RP Act.

With these observations, the Court dismissed the appeal.

Title: GOVIND YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 259