LS Polls 2024: Allahabad HC Questions JKP Leader Who Intended To Contest Against PM Modi On 19-Day Delay In Filing Election Plea

The Allahabad High Court on Friday questioned a Janhit Kisan Party (JKP) leader, who intended to contest the Lok Sabha elections 2024 from Varanasi against Prime Minister Narendra Modi, over a 19-day delay in filing an election plea challenging the returning officer's rejection of his nomination form. A bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh granted the election petitioner (Vijay Nandan), who appeared in person, time (until October 18) to obtain a legal opinion concerning this aspect.It may be noted that JKP Leader Vijay Nandan, who hails from Madhya Pradesh's Seoni District, has moved the High Court claiming that the District Election Officer wrongly rejected his nomination papers on the ground that the affidavit column was left blank and that no fresh affidavit was filed nor administered oath/affirmation. The petitioner argues that after the documents on the checklist were properly received by the Assistant Returning Officer concerned, as per the rules of the Election Commission of India, the Returning Officer and Assistant Returning Officer were responsible for administering the oath/affirmation to the candidate. The Petition states that after taking the oath/affirmation, the receipt seal was to be signed and given to the candidate; however, the same was not done, and his nomination paper was arbitrarily rejected. When the matter came up for hearing before the single Judge on Friday, it was observed that the petition was filed on August 7, 2024, with a 19-day delay. The Court also observed that though an application seeking condonation of delay had been filed along with the election plea, that application itself may not be maintainable. It may be noted that Section 81 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, provides a 45-day period from the date the returned candidate is returned for filing the election petition. Further, Section 86 requires the High Courts to dismiss election petitions that do not comply with Sections 81, 82, and 117. In the instant case, the said 45-day period ended on July 19 2024 (as the Election Commission of India announced the results for the Varanasi seat on June 4). Since the petitioner filed the instant election plea on August 7, the delay (counted from July 20) came out to be of 19 days. Averments made in the election petition The petition states that a careful and exhaustive reading of the impugned nomination form rejection order of the Returning Officer (dated May 15, 2024) reveals a clerical mistake that could have been rectified at the time of scrutiny; however, the plea argues that the Returning Officer committed illegality by not doing so. The petitioner has contended that the candidature/nomination form of any candidature can be rejected only if there is any concealment of fact in giving a declaration, but in the present case, in the entire impugned order, nowhere is it mentioned that the petitioner concealed any information while submitting the candidature. The petitioner also submits that if the affidavit column was left blank, it was the duty of the Returning Officer to rectify the mistake. Instead of redressing the clerical error, the Returning Officer, in gross violation of natural justice, rejected the petitioner's candidature/nomination form, which isn't justifiable, the plea argues. “Had the Returning Officer acted illegally and in consonance with law, he would have accepted the nomination forms submitted by the petitioner and allowed him to contest election. By depriving the petitioner of his valuable right to contest election, the respondent no.4 has acted contrary to law and his decision deserves to be interfered by this Hon'ble Court,” the Petition states. The petition also states that the Assistant Returning Officer did not follow the rules of the Election Commission, which is why the Assistant Returning Officer is eligible for criminal punishment as per the rules of the Election Commission. “140 Crore citizen of India trust the Honorable Election Commission and cast their votes for the MPs in the Lok Sabha elections to elect the Prime Minister and Chief Minister of our country who can develop the country on which the District Election Officer plays an important role. But Varanasi District Election Officer has violated all the rules to benefit a particular person by breaking the trust of 140 Crore citizens of India,” the Petition states. Prime Minister Narendra Modi won the Varanasi seat, defeating Congress' Ajay Rai by 152,513 votes. This was the lowest margin he had won the seat with since 2014. Seven candidates, including PM Modi, had contested from the Varanasi seat, as the DEO had rejected 36 nomination papers.Case title - Vijay Nandan vs. Chief Election Commissioner, Election Commission Of India And 3 OthersClick Here To Read/Download Order

LS Polls 2024: Allahabad HC Questions JKP Leader Who Intended To Contest Against PM Modi On 19-Day Delay In Filing Election Plea

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags