Safiya Malik

The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal challenging changes in the office bearers of Janta Dal (United) (JDU) as recorded by the Election Commission of India (ECI). The court held that under Section 29A(9) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RP Act), the ECI’s function is purely administrative and does not extend to adjudicating disputes regarding internal party elections. The court upheld the single judge’s ruling that such disputes must be resolved through a competent civil court rather than the ECI.

The appellant, a former State President of JDU’s Madhya Pradesh unit, sought to invalidate multiple communications made by JDU to the ECI between 2016 and 2021 regarding changes in its leadership. He alleged that these changes violated the party’s constitution and internal rules and were conducted fraudulently. Additionally, he challenged his own expulsion from the party, asserting that it was an arbitrary move to suppress dissent.

The appellant had previously raised his objections with the ECI through letters dated November 4, 2016, and March 10, 2017. Another individual, Thakur Balbir Singh, had also lodged a complaint on similar grounds. The ECI responded on February 7, 2017, and May 24, 2017, stating that it does not have the authority to adjudicate such disputes and that the appellant should seek redress through the party’s internal mechanisms or approach a civil court.

Despite these responses, the appellant filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court, challenging the validity of the changes recorded by the ECI. The single judge dismissed the petition, ruling that Section 29A(9) does not empower the ECI to conduct an inquiry into the legitimacy of internal party elections. The present appeal was filed to contest this decision.

The court examined the legal framework of Section 29A(9) of the RP Act, which requires political parties to inform the ECI of any changes in their name, head office, office bearers, or other material details. The judgment clarified that this provision serves an administrative function and does not grant the ECI any adjudicatory power.

The judgment stated: "A plain reading of Section 29A(9) suggests that it requires parties to notify the ECI of changes but does not empower the ECI to conduct an inquiry into the validity of those changes."

The court rejected the appellant’s argument that the ECI must verify the legitimacy of internal elections before accepting such communications, noting that such a requirement is not supported by the statutory framework. It cited A.P. Aboobaker Musaliar v. Distt. Registrar (G), (2004) 11 SCC 247, where the Supreme Court held that recording administrative updates does not confer legal validity upon them beyond their intended purpose.

The court also addressed the appellant’s reliance on Chandra Prakash Kaushik v. Election Commission of India & Anr. and Swami Chakrapani v. Election Commission of India, distinguishing them on factual grounds. The judgment stated: "The remedy for an individual aggrieved by an internal party election is to seek redressal through the internal mechanisms of the party or through a civil suit before a competent court. The ECI is not the appropriate forum for such disputes."

The court further noted that the appellant had failed to challenge the ECI’s earlier responses in a timely manner, further weakening his case.

The court dismissed the appeal, stating: "The nature of reliefs sought by the appellant in the writ petition fall wholly outside the ambit of Section 29A(9) of the RP Act. The single judge was correct in dismissing the petition."

The judgment stated that disputes regarding internal elections and party leadership changes should be resolved through appropriate legal forums, such as civil courts, and not through the ECI. The appeal, along with pending applications, was dismissed, with no order as to costs.

Case Title: Govind Yadav v. Union of India and Ors.
Case Number: LPA 133/2025
Bench: Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

[Read/Download order]