'No Fundamental Right To Challenge Elections': J&K High Court In Harsh Dev Singh Case
Justice Sanjay Dhar said that right to contest an election or to question an election is neither a fundamental right nor a common law right
By ETV Bharat Jammu & Kashmir Team
Published : April 20, 2026 at 7:33 PM IST
Srinagar: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh on Monday said that election disputes are governed entirely by statute and not by general legal principles. The court said that the right to contest an election or to question an election is purely a statutory right.
In his 13-page judgment, Justice Sanjay Dhar, while pronouncing the verdict in a case (EP No. 1/2024) involving Harsh Dev Singh, said: "The right to contest an election or to question an election is neither a fundamental right nor a common law right but is purely a statutory right." The court further said this position leaves no room for flexibility, binding petitioners such as Singh to the exact provisions laid down in the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Justice Dhar also ruled on a key preliminary issue, holding that the law governing election disputes limits who can be made parties to such proceedings.
Singh, former Minister of Education of Jammu & Kashmir, was represented by senior advocate Aseem Kumar Sawhney along with advocate Shabab Malik. The respondents include the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and others, represented by assisting counsel Chetna Manhas for Senior AAG Monika Kohli, along with advocate Vilakshan Singh.
At the centre of the dispute was whether Singh had wrongly included officials and other individuals as respondents in addition to contesting candidates.
"Whether there is mis-joinder of parties? If so, to what effect?" Justice Dhar said this while framing the issue in the judgment.
The court noted that counsel for one of the respondents argued that the petition violated Section 82 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which governs parties to election petitions. According to this provision, only contesting candidates are required to be impleaded.
Justice Dhar noting the respondent's argument pointed out that the petitioner had gone beyond this requirement by including "officers and officials against whom allegations of impropriety have been leveled."
The court also examined the statutory framework and relevant Supreme Court precedents cited in the case, including Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar vs Roop Singh Rathore, Jyoti Basu vs Debi Ghosal, and B.S. Yadiyurappa vs Mahalingappa.
Rejecting the petitioner's reliance on procedural flexibility under Section 87 of the Act, which allows application of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court asserted the special nature of election law. The court also stressed that election petitions must strictly follow the statutory scheme when it comes to parties involved. "The provisions of Section 82 of the Act of 1951 are mandatory in nature and the parties to an election petition are strictly governed by the said provision," it held.
The court further clarified that general civil procedure cannot override specific election law requirements: "Though Section 87 of the Act of 1951 makes the procedure of Code of Civil Procedure applicable to the trial of election petitions, yet the same cannot be invoked to defeat the mandatory provisions contained in Section 82 of the Act."
Addressing the petitioner's role directly, the judgment while highlighting the limitation on expanding the scope of respondents read: "The petitioner cannot be permitted to implead any person as a party to the election petition except those who are required to be impleaded under Section 82 of the Act of 1951."
Following his defeat in the October 2024 Jammu and Kashmir Assembly elections, Singh approached the High Court, requesting that the Chenani Assembly election results from 2024 be declared null and void. Elections for theChenani segment were held on October 8, 2024. In his 200-page petition, Singh accused the respondents of widespread electoral law violations and misconduct during the election process.
Mankotia, listed as Respondent Number 10 in the petition, won the Chenani seat by a margin of 15,611 votes. BJP's Mankotia secured47,990 (56.4%) votes while his cousin Singh received 32,379 (38.1%) votes representing the J&K National Panthers Party (India). Singh claimed that Mankotia and his supporters compromised the election's fairness by participating in corrupt activities such as bribery, undue influence, and misuse of government machinery.
The petition also alleged that Mankotia and his team orchestrated a vilification campaign against Singh, labeling him as "anti-national," "pro-Pakistani," and a supporter of terrorist organizations.
Read More:
