Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The petitioner had previously approached the Delhi High Court in respect of the misuse of Election conduct rules in Rajya Sabha Election, but the court dismissed the petition.
In the Instant case, the advocate Amit Sahni moved the Supreme Court claiming the misuse of Rule 39 (2)(b), Rule 70, Rule 73 (2)(e) of the Conduct of Elections Rule, 1961. The petitioner sought the apex court to direct the ECI to avoid such misuse concerning the Upper House election. An MLA should cast his or her vote as per the provisions, which is using the inkpen provided by the secretariat.
The petitioner intended to avoid such misuse in view of the incident relating to two Rajya Sabha seats from Haryana in 2016. Earlier, about 12 Congress MLAs changed the ink pen provided by the ECI and replaced it with a normal ink pen. Although the votes cast by them were declared invalid, the error committed by them gained the BJP a seat. The ECI did not take the petitioner seriously when he approached them about this matter either.
The petitioner contended that transparency is imperative in the electoral process of the Upper House. This is pursuant to the amendment made in 2003, and since the electoral process is no longer a secret, the petitioner can have an affidavit signed by the electors in the Rajya Sabha. Further, the petitioner said that the ink used in the election should not change the results. The elector should cast his or her vote to the agent of his or her Political Party, failing which the votes would be invalid. Transparency can be demanded by seeking affidavits from the electors to decide the fate of the Rajya Sabha members.
However, the Supreme Court said that it could not intervene with the impugned order in the Special Leave Petition. But the Election Commission of India has an obligation to pass any reasoned order when the petitioner approaches it with any relevant matter.
86540
103860
630
114
59824