Telangana High Court Voids Legislative Council Elections From Adilabad Local Authorities' Constituency, Directs Fresh Polls
The Telangana High Court has declared the Telangana Legislative Council elections from Adilabad Local Authorities' Constituency for the year as void and directed the conduct of fresh elections. The order was passed by Justice K. Lakshman in an election petition filed by Pathireddy Rajeshwar Reddy a member of the Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS) now, Bharath Rashtra Samithi (BRS). The...
The Telangana High Court has declared the Telangana Legislative Council elections from Adilabad Local Authorities' Constituency for the year as void and directed the conduct of fresh elections.
The order was passed by Justice K. Lakshman in an election petition filed by Pathireddy Rajeshwar Reddy a member of the Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS) now, Bharath Rashtra Samithi (BRS). The election petitioner claimed that the application for withdrawal of name from the nominated list of contesting candidates from Adilabad filed on his behalf by his proposer was done by forging his signature and falsely claiming to be authorized.
Further, it was claimed that this incident was part of a bigger conspiracy, wherein the leaders of the BRS party wanted to nominate another candidate's name (R1) for the Legislative Council elections and do away with the petitioner's nomination while he was out of town tending other business.
Most importantly, the election petitioner contended that the returning officer did not follow the statutory obligation mandated under section 37 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, thereby vitiating the entire process of election. Additionally, It was contended that there was a violation of section 38(1) of the 1951 Act, Rule-9 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 and clause 4 of the Election Handbook
The court after examining the evidence (including CCTV footage) noted that the conduct of the returning officer in not verifying the genuineness of the withdrawal form painted a picture of an oblique motive. Referring to Section 100 of the 1951 Act, the Court noted that non-compliance on the part of the returning officer affected the rights of the election petitioner materially and thus held the elections void.
“Free and fair election is the sacrosanct thread that weaves our Country's democratic structure. The procedure laid down under Act, 1951 and Rules, 1961 have to be followed scrupulously without any deviation. The Returning Officer cannot say go-by to the said procedure…As discussed above, due to lapses of respondent No.5 in accepting Ex.R2 - withdrawal form, the election petitioner was deprived from contesting in the subject election. It is not a fair election," it was stated.
Background:
The election petitioner contended that in November 2021, he submitted his nomination for the Legislative Council from Adilabad. His nomination was accepted, and he left the constituency to tend to some business in Hyderabad.
It was stated that a few days later, the petitioner was shocked to find that his name did not find a place in the final list of nominated candidates. Upon enquiry, the petitioner learnt that one of his proposers had submitted a withdrawal form on his behalf by forging his signature and the same was accepted without verification by the returning officer.
The petitioner gave a complaint on the official number of the returning officer and also gave representation before the Chief electoral officer. A complaint was also lodged before the police for forgery.
The petitioner then filed a Writ against the actions of the returning officer but was advised to approach the Court by way of an election petition, giving rise to the present case.
During the course of cross-examination, the petitioner submitted the forged documents for forensic analysis that confirmed the signatures were not his.
The returning officer contended that she did not need to verify the signature as it was submitted by the proposer and personal friend of the election petition and prima facie, the signatures seemed to tally with those on the nomination form.
Findings of the Court:
The Court noted that although the forensic evidence was a weak piece of evidence, no challenge had been made to it by the respondents, hence it was deemed conclusive. Now, the only dispute left to be settled was whether the returning officer conducted due diligence as prescribed by the Act and Rules before accepting a withdrawal form.
The Court observed that the returning officer did not make any note or endorsement in writing on the withdrawal form about the requirements contemplated under Section – 37 (date, time of receipt), The returning officer also failed to affix the form in any conspicuous place immediately after the form was received, in fact, the documents were uploaded on the official website as late as January 2022.
The Bench also considered that despite receiving a complaint on her official number, via WhatsApp, the returning officer failed to act on the complaint.
Additionally, the Court held, after perusing the CCTV footage, that despite the person submitting the withdrawal with a mask, she failed to collect the identity of the individual. The returning officer also did not inform the election petitioner regarding the withdrawal.
The Bench also noted that R1 (the candidate nominated in place of the election petitions) did not choose to cross-examine the returning officer, which the bench viewed as part of the 'larger conspiracy' as pleaded by the petitioner.
Thus, the Court concluded:
“The aforesaid facts would reveal that respondent No.6 has forged the signature of the election petitioner on Exs.R1 and R2 and submitted the same to respondent No.5. On receipt of the same, respondent No.5, without verifying the same and without coming to satisfaction and without following mandatory procedure as required under Section - 37 of the Act, 1951, accepted the same and published the list of validly nominated candidate”
In the end, the Court held the petitioner also entitled to INR 50 thousand for being deprived of conducting elections for no fault of his own.
The sentence was suspended for a period of 4 weeks on request of R1 to take appropriate steps.
Case Title: Pathireddy Rajeshwar Reddy vs Vittal Dande and ors.
Case no.: EP 1 of 2022
Counsel for petitioner: Ghanshyamdas Mandhani appearing on behalf of Bankatlal Mandhani
Counsel for respondents: B. Nalin Kumar, Senior Counsel representing Pratusha Boppanna, Avinash Desai, senior counsel representing Mohammed Omer Farooq & K.S. Rahul, representing Padma Sharanappal