Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
On Wednesday, the Election Commission has opposed a Public Interest Litigation which was filed by Manohar Lal Sharma seeking disqualification of Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar in respect of non-disclosure of an FIR against him in a murder case in pre nomination affidavits and sought its dismissal. Sharma has accused the minister of hiding his “criminal records” while filing election affidavits between 2004 and 2012 when he contested for various elections.
This stand of Election Commission was sought by bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra in September last year. The FIR was pertaining to a complaint case in a murder in 1991.
The affidavit as per the issuance said that minister plea was not maintainable as he did not wilfully and deliberately avail of specific statutory remedy provided under Section 125A of the Representation of People’s act and rather it chose to approach the commission directly.
As per the Section 125A, if any voter spots any discrepancy or falsehood in the details provided by any candidate he has the option to file a complaint or FIR against the concerned candidate.
The affidavit also added that the Election Commission is not an investigative agency or authority and does not either possess the means or is responsible for conducting an enquiry in order to ascertain if the disclosures made by a particular candidate are true and correct. The documents which were provided by the petitioners do not disclose any cause of action for the ECI to proceed against the minister.
There is another reason for which the petition is been dismissed which according to EC is the plea which was filed was not maintainable as the relief prayed clearly reveals that no fundamental rights of the petitioner or of the citizens of this country have been violated in any manner what so ever warranting the interference of the SC and the aspect was mandatory in a Public Interest Litigation.
In past several decisions the court has laid down that the extraordinary original jurisdiction can only be exercised where the enforcement of any fundamental rights is concerned whereas in this case there is no as such violation of the same.
The affidavit clearly states that “Nitish had disclosed the fact in 2012 but if 2015 is concerned, the interesting thing is that he did not contest for 2015 assembly elections and there s no question for filing it”. The affidavit is silent about the allegation of “non-revelation from 2004 to2012”.
Sharma has also contended that since EC is a quasi judicial body,it should take certain actions towards such revelation but to this EC replied that the concealments of representation was received through mails but was not traceable due to technical glitch.
Demanding for an investigation towards the CM be conducted afresh, the petition has also asked for a generic declaration by the apex court that no person having FIR and criminal cases against him can be appointed to any constitutional office.
86540
103860
630
114
59824