Needless to include RO in poll petition

CHENNAI: Inclusion of the returning officer (RO) in an election petition is neither proper nor necessary, the Madras HC has ruled. Justice V Dhanapalan, who gave the ruling, also held that the right to elect or to be elected or raising a dispute regarding an election was neither a fundamental right nor a common law right.Allowing an application from the RO of Ilayangudi  Assembly constituency in Sivaganga district, the judge said that when the law and the rules contemplated as to who should be arraigned as parties to an election petition with regard to an election dispute, the aspects should be done only in accordance with the provisions and not otherwise. When the law did not permit the joining of the RO as a party other than those mentioned in Sections 82 and 86 (4), only those persons who were necessary to the dispute should be made as parties. No one else should be made a party beyond the scope of legislative intent. The RO filed an application to strike off his name as a respondent in an election petition filed by one K Kalaimani. The RO contended  that he could not be made a party to the election petition as he was neither a necessary nor a proper party.Kalaimani countered stating that his nomination was improperly rejected by the RO ignoring all laws, regulations and the Election Commission instructions with regard to filing and scrutiny of nomination papers. The RO’s complicity with other persons could be proved only if he was made a party to the proceedings. Since the legal provisions were categorical with regard to the parties to an election petition, the inclusion of RO was unnecessary, the judge said.