Click the Play button to listen to article

The Calcutta High Court on Thursday reserved its order on a Congress plea alleging discrepancies between Bharatiya Janata Party's Nandigram bypoll candidate Hasirani Rath's age and the year in which she claims to have passed her Class 10 examination.

Senior Advocate Ritzu Ghosal, appearing for Congress, told Justice Krishna Rao that Rath's election affidavit states that she is over 60 years old, while another part of the affidavit records that she passed the Madhyamik examination in 1965. The Congress contended that the two particulars could not be reconciled.

Ghosal submitted that the Congress was not seeking to stall the election or cancel Rath's candidature at this stage, but was questioning the discharge of statutory duties by the Election Commission and the Returning Officer.

"I have not asked for cancellation. I am not putting a spanner in the works."

He submitted that the Returning Officer was required to scrutinise the nomination papers and that the alleged discrepancy was an "error apparent" which could have been noticed during the statutory scrutiny process.

Ghosal further submitted that if Rath's stated age was correct, then the Madhyamik qualification mentioned in the affidavit would require verification. Conversely, if the educational record was correct, her age would have to be examined.

"Either her age or her birth date has to be seen. One of it is correct."

He argued that the issue was not about Rath's eligibility to contest the election, but about whether the Election Commission had properly discharged its statutory and constitutional functions.

"I am not on her candidature. I am on the conduct of the Election Commission."

The Congress counsel also acknowledged that the party had approached the Court after the statutory scrutiny had already taken place.

"Admittedly I am out of time. I cannot challenge. But what was the Election Commission doing?" Ghosal submitted.

The Court questioned whether calling for the election records at this stage could itself have an impact on the electoral process.

Opposing the plea, counsel for the respondent argued that any objection to the nomination papers had to be raised at the appropriate stage and that the petitioners, being a political party, could not now challenge the scrutiny process.

The Court, however, observed that the statute required the Returning Officer to decide objections and questioned the contention that a third party could not raise an issue concerning the scrutiny process.

The respondent further argued that an incorrect declaration regarding age, by itself, could not result in cancellation of a nomination unless it affected the candidate's qualification to contest.

"If I make a misdeclaration of my age, it is not a substantial issue."

It was argued that since there is no educational or age qualification of the kind alleged that would affect Rath's eligibility to contest the Assembly election, the alleged discrepancy would not materially affect the election.

Senior Advocate DS Naidu, appearing for the Election Commission, submitted that the Congress had raised the issue only after the period for objections had expired.

Naidu argued that while the Returning Officer had a duty to scrutinise the nomination papers, an allegedly improper acceptance of a nomination would not by itself justify intervention unless it had materially affected the election.

He also submitted that no objection had been raised by the Congress during scrutiny and that Rath had described herself as being over 60 years of age.

"It is not their case that they pointed it out and we ignored."

The ECI further submitted that the objection could have been raised at the appropriate stage and that the statutory scheme was intended to avoid uncertainty in the electoral process.

The Court has reserved its order.

The Nandigram Assembly bypoll is scheduled for October 6, with counting on October 9.

Case: West Bengal Pradesh Congress Committe v ECI

Tags: