Allowed¶22

The Chief Electoral Officer v. O.Panneerselvam

Madras HC24 Jan 2025OA/881/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Striking off of non-contesting respondents from Election Petition; Section 82 Representation of the People Act, 1951; joinder confined to election contestants; Jyoti Basu v. Debi Goshal, AIR 1982 SC 983; O.A. No. 881 of 2024 in ELP No. 3 of 2024; O. Panneerselvam election petition; Chief Electoral Officer, Tamil Nadu; caveat to assist the Court when called; allowed on 24-01-2025.

What did the court decide?

The applicants (impleaded as respondents 26 and 27 in ELP No. 3 of 2024) are permitted to be struck off from the array of respondents in the Election Petition, subject to the caveat that they shall assist the Court whenever required or called upon. ¶22

The Chief Electoral Officer Vs O.Panneerselvam — Election Law | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

OA NO. 881 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24-01-2025

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN

¶4

OA NO. 881 of 2024

¶5

¶6

ELP NO. 3 OF 2024

¶7

The Chief Electoral Officer State of Tamil Nadu, Secretariate, Chennai - 600 009. and another

Applicant(s)

O.Panneerselvam

S/o.M.Ottakarathevar, No.145/70. South Agragaram, Thenkarai, Peryakulam - 625 601, Theni District and 25 Others

¶12

Respondent(s)

¶13

For Applicant(s): Mr.Nirangan Rajagopalan For Respondent(s): Mr.K.Chandrasekaran for R1; Mr.T.S.Baskaran for R2

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This application has been filed by the 26^th and 27^th respondents in the Election Petition

¶16

seeking to be struck off of as respondents in the Election Petition.

¶17

2.In the affidavit filed in support of the Judges Summons, it had been stated that, under

¶18

Section 82 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 the contestants in the Election

¶19

Petition should necessarily be confined to the parties who had contested the election. This https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

position has been further reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 1982 SC 983 in Jyoti Basu & Others vs. Debi Goshal & Others wherin, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had also observed that the persons who had contested the elections, should be parties to the Election Petition and it is not imperative that anybody else is joined as party as respondent. The applicants therefore claim that they should be struck off from the array of the respondents.

¶21

3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in the Election Petition also.

¶22

4.In view of the provisions of law as stated above and also the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petition stands allowed. But however, a caveat is placed, that the applicants herein must always come forward to assist the Court as and when required and as and when called for by this Court. With this observation, this application stands allowed.

¶23

24-01-2025 (1/2)

¶24

ssr

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

The Chief Electoral Officer v. O.Panneerselvam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Chief Electoral Officer v. O.Panneerselvam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Padma Vs The Under Secretary to Govt. of India

G.Madhaiyan Vs the Inspector of Panchayat /

A.Nazeem Vs The Commissioner

S.Dhanasekar Vs Dr.Sudhanshu Gupta, (I.F.S)

S. Dhanasekar Vs Dr. Sudhanshu Gupta (I.F.S)

Sumathi Vs The Member Secretary