Somnath Bharti, a former Delhi Law Minister and three‑time MLA from Malviya Nagar, approached the Delhi High Court seeking to set aside the election of Satish Upadhyay, who won the seat by a margin of 2,131 votes in the 2025 Delhi Assembly polls. Bharti’s petition alleged that corrupt practices were employed during the campaign, specifically claiming that the Bharatiya Janata Party candidate had financially supported Congress candidate Jitender Kumar Kochar in order to target Bharti and split the vote.
The petition, however, did not implead Jitender Kumar Kochar as a respondent. The Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Jasmeet Singh, dismissed the petition on 17 January 2026 on the ground of non‑joinder of a necessary party.
High Court’s Reasoning
The High Court held that under Section 82(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RoPA), a petitioner must join as a respondent any other candidate against whom allegations of any corrupt practice are made in the petition. The court found that the allegations against Kochar – namely that he had received financial gratification from the BJP candidate – fell within the ambit of Section 82(b). Consequently, the failure to implead Kochar was treated as an incurable defect requiring dismissal under Section 86(1) read with Section 82(b) of RoPA.
In addressing Bharti’s contention that the mere receipt of money does not constitute a corrupt practice, the High Court relied on the 1958 amendment to Section 123 of RoPA, which clarifies that the acceptance of gratification is indeed a corrupt practice. The court therefore concluded that Kochar, as the alleged recipient of such gratification, was a necessary party.
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.
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.
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.