PIL To Set Aside Rahul Gandhi's LS Election From Rae Bareli: Allahabad HC Adjourns Hearing Sans Going Into Merits Of Case

Without going into the merits of the case, the Allahabad High Court today adjourned hearing in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea seeking to set aside Congress leader Rahul Gandhi's election as an MP from the Rae Bareli Lok Sabha seat on the ground that he is not an Indian Citizen but a British citizen and thus ineligible to contest the polls. The matter will now be heard by a regular bench on July 1. During the course of the hearing, a vacation bench of Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal asked LiveLaw's reporter (Associate Editor Sparsh Upadhyay) to stop reporting court proceedings and leave the courtroom.Bench asks LiveLaw's reporter to stop reporting court proceedings and leave the courtroomJustice Mathur : Aap (referring to the reporter of Live Law) bahar jaaiye aur wahan reporting kijiye apni.#AllahabadHighCourt #RahulGandhi https://t.co/4q5spb8BlN— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) June 26, 2024 This report is based only on the Court's observations made until the reporter was asked to leave the courtroom. Court asks the Advocate if he has filed a Demand Draft of Rs. 25K with the Registry As the PIL was taken up, the vacation bench at the outset asked Advocate Ashok Pandey (counsel appearing for the PIL petitioner) whether he had filed a Demand Draft of Rs. 25,000/- along with the plea.Justice Deshwal orally remarked: “Allahabad HC ke aadesh ke anusar aapki (referring to Advocate Ashok Pandey) koi bhi PIL petition 25,000/- ki cost ke bina nahin dayar ki jaa sakti” [As per the order of Allahabad HC, no PIL petition of yours (referring to advocate Ashok Pandey) could be filed without the submission of a cost of Rs 25,000/-] The bench was referring to a 2016 Judgment of the Allahabad High Court, wherein the HC had directed its Registry that each petition (filed by Advocate Pandey or Hindu Personal Law Board) be accepted for filing only if it is accompanied by a Demand Draft of Rs 25,000/-. This direction was passed stating that Pandey is involved in filing PILs merely as a means of publicity. In response to the Court's query, Pandey submitted that he had filed multiple cases before the High Court as well as before the Supreme Court and the Registry never objected or asked him to submit a DD. “The Court has been hearing me since 2016. Even Justice Mathur has heard me in many matters. Mere cases to Justice Chandrachud sahab bhi sunte hain…Ye kaisa niyam hai ki baki log normal court fees dekar Petitions file karen, aur Ashok Pandey Rs. 25K jama karen tab peititon file karen, (What kind of rule is this that other people file petitions by paying normal court fees, and Ashok Pandey is required to deposit Rs 25K)” Advocate Pandey submitted. Justice Deshwal however pointed that the 2016 judgment states that his petitions cannot be heard without deposit of a DD as prescribed.The Court also objected to the PIL petitioner (Mr. Vignesh) standing close to the counsel, near the dias. Justice Mathur said: Yeh PIL Petitioner (Mr. Vignesh) aapke sath kyon khade hain? Yeh kya dramatic scene ban raha court mein? Aapko (referring to the petitioner) behas karni hai khud kya? Nahi na to jaiye piche jakar baithiye. [Why is this PIL Petitioner (Mr. Vignesh) standing with you? What is this dramatic scene going on in the court? Do you (referring to the petitioner) want to argue the matter yourself, if not, then go at the back and sit there] When Advocate Pandey inquired the reasons for Court's objection, Justice Mathur said the area is meant for use of Advocates. The matter was then adjourned to be taken up in the post lunch session. When the bench reassembled, Advocate Pandey was asked again about what the High Court had said in its 2016 order. While Advocate Pandey was arguing that he has a right to file petitions without filing a DD, the Court asked the LiveLaw reporter to leave the courtroom.Justice Mathur asks LiveLaw's reporter to stop reporting court proceedings and leave the courtroom. #AllahabadHighCourt— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) June 26, 2024 What did HC's 2016 Judgment say? The operative part of the 2016 Judgment, the HC had observed thus: “The petitioner (Advocate Ashok Pandey) is habituated to instituting petitions either in his own name or in the name of the body through which the present petition has been filed. We are affirmatively of the view that repeated recourse to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is initiated merely as a means of publicity and without any supervening cause or justification based on public interest.” Consequently, the Court had issued the following order to its registry: “We are of the view that before this Court entertains a petition at the behest of the aforesaid entity and person, a direction should be and is issued to the Registry to the effect that each petition be accepted for filing only if it is accompanied by a Demand Draft ...

PIL To Set Aside Rahul Gandhi's LS Election From Rae Bareli: Allahabad HC Adjourns Hearing Sans Going Into Merits Of Case

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags