New Delhi [India], July 17 : The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to examine AAP leader and former Delhi law minister Somnath Bharti's plea contesting BJP leader Satish Upadhyay's victory from the Malviya Nagar Assembly constituency in the 2025 Delhi polls.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said it will hear the case in detail.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Bharti, told the bench that the High Court rejected Bharti's election petition on the erroneous grounds that he failed to make Congress candidate Jitender Kumar Kochar a necessary party in the case.
Bharti has challenged the Delhi High Court's January 17 judgment, which upheld Upadhyay's election.
The High Court had dismissed Bharti's plea while holding that the petition suffered from a fatal legal defect and was not maintainable in law.
Bharti, a three-time MLA from Malviya Nagar, had contested the February 5, 2025, Delhi Assembly elections as the Aam Aadmi Party candidate. The results declared on February 8 showed that he secured 37,433 votes, while Upadhyay won with 39,564 votes, a margin of 2,131 votes.
Bharti subsequently approached the High Court seeking to have the election declared null and void while alleging corrupt practices under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
In his petition before the High Court, Bharti had alleged several corrupt practices under the ROPA, including improper inducement of voters, manipulation of voter lists, non-disclosure of election expenditure, and collusion involving the Congress candidate Jitender Kumar Kochar.
A key allegation was that Upadhyay had allegedly funded Kochar's campaign to divide votes against Bharti, amounting to bribery and undue influence under Section 123 of the Act.
Upadhyay's lawyer before the High Court had raised a preliminary objection, arguing that since Bharti had levelled allegations of corrupt practices against Kochar, Section 82(b) of the ROPA made it mandatory to implead him as a respondent.
Justice Jasmeet Singh of the High Court had ruled that Bharti failed to implead a necessary party against whom allegations of corrupt practice had been made, a lapse that mandatorily attracts dismissal under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
In his petition before the High Court, Bharti claimed that Upadhyay failed to disclose information relating to a pending criminal complaint or FIR. It was mandatory under election law, said Bharti, adding that the alleged non-disclosure materially affected the election outcome and rendered Upadhyay's nomination invalid.
He further alleged that Upadhyay used cars to transport voters to the booths and manipulated the voters' list.