Read Time: 12 minutes
Govind Yadav raised objections to internal correspondences and alleged illegalities in the organizational elections of JDU. He argued that new notices had overridden the scheduled elections, leading to the appointment of rival members as office-bearers under emergency provisions. Yadav claimed that the appointments made after Nitish Kumar’s disputed election as JDU president were intended to serve vested interests and violated the party's rules.
The Delhi High Court, recently, rejected a petition filed by Govind Yadav, a former member of Janata Dal-United (JDU) against the elections of Nitish Kumar as President of JDU. The court observed that the “petition lacks merit and falls outside the jurisdictional scope of Article 226”.
“The nature of the reliefs sought in the present writ petition, as well as their examination in light of the settled law, fall wholly outside the ambit of the inquiry contemplated under Section 29A of the RP Act”, the bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav held.
A petition was presented to the court involving critical questions concerning the extent of the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) authority to investigate the authenticity of information submitted by political parties regarding internal changes, such as the appointment of office bearers, as mandated by Section 29A(9) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RP Act). Additionally, the petition examined whether disputes arising from internal elections within registered political parties could be adjudicated by the court.
Govind Yadav claimed to be one of the founding members of Janata Dal and had a significant political career within the party, holding various positions such as National Secretary, National General Secretary, and National President of the JDU (Youth Wing). His grievance stemmed from a communication dated 11.04.2016, which informed the ECI that Nitish Kumar had been elected as JDU president through an organizational election. The petitioner contested this election, arguing that it violated the party’s constitution and internal democracy. He also challenged the National Council's ratification of the election and the subsequent communication to the ECI on 25.04.2016, which recognized Kumar’s election.
In response to a similar complaint by another individual, Thakur Balbir Singh, the ECI, in a communication dated 07.02.2017, acknowledged receiving complaints related to internal party elections but stated that such disputes were outside its jurisdiction according to the JDU constitution. The ECI emphasized that disciplinary actions were a matter for the party itself and reiterated this stance in a subsequent reply to the petitioner on 24.05.2017. Despite this, the petitioner maintained that the ECI failed to recognize the legitimate officebearers elected under the party's constitution and instead acknowledged a rival faction.
Representing Govind Yadav, Advocate Pathak Rakesh Kaushik argued that the ECI's position of non-interference in internal party election disputes was flawed. He asserted that the ECI had the authority and obligation to verify the authenticity of information submitted by political parties and that its functions were quasi-judicial rather than merely administrative. He contended that the elections of Nitish Kumar as JDU president in 2016, 2019, and 2022 were fraudulent and violated the JDU constitution.
Advocate Sidhant Kumar, representing the ECI, argued that the communications issued by the ECI accurately stated that the ECI had no authority to adjudicate the validity of internal elections within political parties. He stated that there were two competing factions within the party—one led by Chotubhai Amarsang Vasava and the other by Nitish Kumar—each claiming to be the legitimate office bearer and president of JDU. In its orders dated 17.11.2017 and 25.11.2017, the ECI recognized Nitish Kumar as the legitimate office bearer of the party. Govind Yadav’s representations were rejected in both orders, primarily on the basis that Govind Yadav needed to seek a declaration from a competent court to challenge the validity of the organizational elections.
The court noted that the Representation of the People Act (RP Act) was enacted to regulate the conduct of elections to the Houses of Parliament and the Legislative Assemblies of each State, define qualifications and disqualifications for membership, address and reduce corrupt practices and other offences associated with elections, and resolve disputes arising in connection with the electoral process.
The court observed that Section 29A(1) stipulated that any association or body of Indian citizens identifying itself as a political party and seeking benefits under Part IV-A of the Act must apply to the ECI for registration. This application had to be signed by the Chief Executive Officer of the association or body and either presented to the Secretary of the ECI or sent by registered post.
The court further added that Sub-Section 4 of Section 29A required the application to include details such as the name of the association or body, the State where its head office was situated, the address for communications, the names of its office bearers, the numerical strength of its members, and any local units. It also required information on whether the association was represented in Parliament or any State Legislature and the number of such members.
The case under review focused on whether the ECI's role in this context was solely administrative or quasi-judicial. An examination of Section 29A indicated that the functions involved quasi-judicial elements. The Supreme Court's decision in Indian National Congress (I) v Institute of Social Welfare reinforced this view, affirming that the ECI's functions under Section 29A were quasi-judicial in nature.
The court reiterated the principle that changes to a political party's details must be promptly communicated to the ECI to ensure accurate records. The court ruled that internal party matters, including election procedures, were beyond the ECI's purview. The court affirmed that the ECI was not required to inquire into the fairness of internal elections within a political party.
The court held that the ECI’s role under Section 29A is primarily limited to considering applications for registration and ensuring that material changes are communicated. It does not have supervisory jurisdiction to review adherence to the party's constitution or internal election processes.
In conclusion, the court found that the reliefs sought in the writ petition were beyond the scope of Section 29A and dismissed the petition. The petition lacked merit and fell outside the jurisdictional scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition was dismissed along with any pending applications, with no order as to costs.
Case Title: Govind Yadav v Union Of India (2024:DHC:6565)
Please Login or Register
