The Supreme Court has agreed to hear in open court the review petition filed by former Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis against last year's judgment that had set aside his clean chit in a case alleging election malpractice.
A three judge bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra, Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose allowed Fadnavis's application for allowing oral hearing of review petition in open court.
On October 1, 2019, a bench headed by the then CJI Ranjan Gogoi had set aside the clean chit given to Fadnavis by the Bombay High Court in a case alleging furnishing false information in the election affidavit submitted during 2014 assembly polls.
The bench of CJI Ranjan Gogoi, Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose had observed that prima facie case under Section 125 of the Representation of Peoples Act was made out against Fadnavis, and directed the trial court to proceed with the case.
The Court was dealing with the petition filed by lawyer Satish Ukey seeking prosecution of Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis under the provisions of the Representation of the People (RP) Act for allegedly failing to furnish details of two pending criminal cases, in which the trial court had taken cognizance, in his election affidavit.
Ukey had contended that the chief minister filed a false affidavit by not disclosing the two criminal matters and yet the trial court and the high court held that there no prima facie case was made out for prosecution of the chief minister.
He had said that a candidate was under mandatory legal obligation to disclose the details of all the cases, in which either charges have been framed or the trial court had taken cognizance, in the nomination papers.
The petitioner had alleged that Fadnavis, in his election affidavit filed in 2014, had failed to disclose the pendency of two criminal cases against him. It was contended that the chief minister did not disclose the information as required of him under the election law and the non-disclosure of these two pending criminal cases was in violation of Section 125A of the RP Act and constituted an offence in itself.