News Updates

BJP Candidate Moves Plea In Delhi HC Challenging Manish Sisodia's Election Win

Karan Tripathi
28 Feb 2020 3:04 AM GMT
BJP Candidate Moves Plea In Delhi HC Challenging Manish Sisodias Election Win
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

BJP candidate from Patparganj constituency, Ravinder Singh Negi, has moved an election petition in the Delhi High Court, challenging the election of Delhi's Deputy CM Manish Sisodia from Patparganj constituency.

The Petition has been filed under sections 33A, 80, 81, 84, 98, 100 and 101 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

The Petitioner wants Sisodia's election to be declared void on the grounds of 'corrupt practices'. He also seeks to be declared a returned candidate, as he came second in the election race for Patparganj constituency.

It is alleged by the Petitioner, that Sisodia and his agents, violated section 123 of the Representation of the People Act as they concealed his criminal antecedents by not disclosing them in his nomination papers.

It is further alleged that Sisodia has used his power and position to stall sanction required for prosecuting him. Moreover, he has ensured that no chargesheet should be filed against him.

'The Returning Officer, under the influence of the Respondent 1 (Sisodia) refused to cancel his nomination papers despite the concealment of material facts and non-disclosure of criminal antecedents, which is a clear violation of the Election Commission Guidelines dated 10/10/2018', the petition states.

The act of the Respondent, as per the Petitioner, also attracts the offence laid down in section 125A of the Representation of the People Act.

The election is also challenged on the grounds of non-publication of criminal antecedents in media, providing incorrect residential address, and holding public speeches in violation of section 126 of the RPA.

Next Story