Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Supreme Court set aside Gujarat HC’s order that dismissed Congress leader Ahmad Patel’s application seeking dismissal of an election petition filed against him and relegated the matter to the HC.
The bench, comprising of CJI Dipak Misra, Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice DY Chandrachud, directed the HC to take the decision about whether the copy of election petition served on Patel was a “True Copy”, falling within the meaning of Section 81(3) of the Act.
The election petition was filed by Balwant Singh Rajput challenging the election of Patel to the Rajya Sabha on the ground that he has committed corrupt practices of “undue influence” and “bribery” as per subsection (1) and (2) of Section 123 of the Representation of People’s Act and also on the ground that two valid votes were improperly and illegally rejected by the Returning Officer as well as two invalid votes were accepted by the said RO which ultimately affected the results of the election.
Ahmad Patel filed three applications before the HC, stating the following reasons, seeking dismissal of the election petition at threshold:
Upholding the HC’s view, the first application was dismissed and it was observed that due to the absence of any positive statement in the application filed by the election petitioner and as per the records placed by the office before the Court under Rule 285, it was followed that the grievance made in the application under consideration was based on mere surmises and conjectures and thus, cannot be the basis to dismiss the election petition at the threshold, as prayed.
The second application was set aside and the bench said that the question that is to be decided in Election Application No.3 of 2017, for the dismissal of the election petition, will be limited to non-compliance of Section 81(3) and the consequences flowing therefrom along with under Section 86(1) of the said Act. According to the settled legal position, the dismissal of the election petition under the latter provision is anticipated only on that count and not in reference to some non-compliance of requirement under Section 83 of the Act.
In reference to the third application, the bench pronounced that in case the second application fails, the appellant will be permitted to revive or reopen the challenge to the issues raised in Election Application No.6 of 2017 for dismissal of the election petition under Order VII Rule 11(a) & (d) of the CPC, pertaining to the ground that the election petition is barred by the law or that it doesn’t disclose a cause of action.
86540
103860
630
114
59824