Also Read - Allahabad High Court Bars Government Servant from Contesting Salary Denial after Voluntary Retirement Granted on Basis of Regularised Unauthorised Absence

The High Court further observed that it is not concerned with the perceived harshness or technicality of the statutory provision. It emphasized that once a legal position has been conclusively settled by the Supreme Court, it becomes binding on all subordinate courts under Article 141 of the Constitution. The court rejected the argument that the defect could be cured by later amendment or withdrawal of allegations, stating that election law constitutes a self‑contained code that does not permit curing such lapses after the expiry of the statutory forty‑five‑day limitation period.

Supreme Court’s Intervention

On 17 July 2026, a bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta heard the matter. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Somnath Bharti, submitted that the High Court’s reliance on Section 82(b) was misplaced. Sibal argued that for a person to be covered under the phrase “any other candidate” in Section 82(b), the alleged corrupt practice must involve the consent of the candidate concerned. He contended that there was no evidence that Jitender Kumar Kochar had consented to receive any financial gratification from the BJP candidate, and therefore Kochar did not fall within the required category.

Also Read - MP High Court Seeks State Response on PIL Concerning Teacher Vacancies

Justice Vikram Nath posed the question, “Does Kocher fall in the category of any other person?” to which Sibal responded that Kochar could not be considered such a person absent his consent. Sibal further relied on Section 123(1)(A) of RoPA, which defines bribery as a gift, offer or promise made by a candidate or his agent with the consent of the candidate. Since no consent was shown on Kochar’s part, the allegation could not sustain the requirement of joinder under Section 82(b).

Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for Satish Upadhyay, defended the High Court’s reasoning, emphasizing that the receipt of gratification irrespective of the recipient’s consent constitutes a corrupt practice under the amended provision.

Also Read - Karnataka High Court Seeks Clarification on Governor’s Aid and Advice in KPSC Chairman Suspension

After hearing the submissions, the bench granted leave to appeal, allowing the matter to proceed to a full hearing. The court did not pass any final order on the merits at this stage; it merely admitted the appeal for regular hearing.

Operative Outcome

The Supreme Court’s order admits Somnath Bharti’s appeal challenging the election of Satish Upadhyay from the Malviya Nagar Assembly constituency. The appeal will now be listed for substantive hearing before the same bench. Until a final judgment is delivered, the election result remains subject to the outcome of the appellate proceedings.

Also Read - Allahabad High Court Clarifies Inference of Penetration from Alleged Bleeding in POCSO Cases