Supreme Court to Hear Somnath Bharti’s Appeal Against Malviya Nagar MLA Election
The Supreme Court of India on Friday agreed to hear an appeal by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Somnath Bharti challenging the election of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) legislator Satish Upadhyay from the Malviya Nagar constituency in the 2025 Delhi assembly elections.
A Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta agreed to hear the case following submissions by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared on behalf of Bharti.
The appeal challenges a Delhi High Court order dated January 17, 2026, which dismissed Bharti's election petition. The High Court had thrown out the case on the grounds that Bharti failed to implead a Congress candidate, Jitender Kumar Kochhar, who was also named in the allegations, as a party to the case within the mandatory time limit.
Sibal argued that an application to implead Kochhar as a respondent was pending before the High Court but had not been considered.
Upadhyay won the Malviya Nagar assembly seat by defeating Bharti, who had previously represented the constituency for three consecutive terms, by a margin of more than 2,000 votes.
Bharti's petition sought to set aside Upadhyay's election, alleging corrupt practices during the polls. Bharti claimed that Upadhyay deployed agents to transport voters to polling booths in vehicles. He further alleged that Upadhyay paid large sums of money to the Congress candidate, Kochhar, to run an election campaign directed exclusively against Bharti.
In the High Court, a single-judge bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held that Kochhar was a necessary party to the case. The court ruled that Bharti’s failure to implead him within the prescribed 45-day time limit warranted the dismissal of the petition.
The High Court order stated that under Section 82(b) of the Representation of the People Act, any candidate alleged to have participated in a corrupt practice must be impleaded as a respondent. It added that once the 45-day limitation period expires, the court does not have the jurisdiction to allow amendments to add parties, noting that the dismissal is imperative upon non-compliance.
Upadhyay, who was represented in the Supreme Court by senior advocate Maninder Singh, has previously refuted all allegations contained in Bharti's petition.
