SC Refuses To Entertain BPF's Plea For Postponement Of Elections To Tamulpur Constituency In Assam to Substitute its Candidate Who Defected To BJP

Supreme Court has on Monday declined to entertain the plea by Bodoland People's Front seeking extension in time for completion of election to the Tamulpur Assembly constituency in Assam scheduled to be held on 6th April 2021. The party had sought the time to substitute its candidate who has defected to BJP.

A three-judge Bench of CJI Bobde, Justice Bopanna and Justice Ramasubramanian has allowed petitioner to withdraw the plea and approach the Gauhati High Court.

The petitioner was represented by Senior Advocates AM Singhvi and Devdatt Kamat before the Court today. The petition was filed by Advocates Varun Chopra, Javedur Rahman, Rajesh Inamdar, Aditya Bhat, Gurtejpal Singh and Aman Pawar.

The President of the Bodoland Peoples Front Hangrama Mohilary filed the present plea seeking urgent directions to the Election Commission to decide their representations dated 1st April and 2nd April 2021 and pass appropriate orders to enable the Petitioner's political party to substitute its candidate Rangja Khungur Basuatary, who has defected to the BJP after filing the nomination on behalf of BPF.

The plea sought directions to the Election Commission to amend the election schedule prescribed in the gazette notification dated

12th March 2021 for the 3rd phase of the Assam Assembly Elections, in terms of Section 153 and Section 30 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, so as to enable Petitioner's party i.e. the Bodoland Peoples Front, to substitute its candidate to contest the election.

According to Mohilary, he along with BPF have been denied the right of nomination to contest the elections to Tamulpur assembly constituency by a complete and wanton act of subterfuge and fraud committed by the said Rangja Khungur Basuatary who has defected to BJP.

The petitioner contended that it is apparent that the present case is not one of voluntarily joining another political party, and is result of BJP's decision to adopt an ingenious method to sabotage election prospects of other political parties, after realizing its poor performance in the first and second phase and its imminent defeat in the Assam Elections.

According to the petitioner, it is incontrovertible that BJP leaders have used illicit and illegal influence and even bribery to pressurize Basumatary to join the BJP and their actions have caused grave prejudice to the Petitioner's party since no replacement candidate can be fielded by them and election to the 58- Tamulpur Assembly Constituency has effectively become a sham.

The petitioner also contended that the bar contained under Article 329(b) of the Constitution is not at all attracted in the present case since, as held by the Constitution Bench in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr, and reiterated by a bench of three Judges in Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar, the Petitioner herein is not "calling in question an election" but is only seeking directions for the furtherance and completion of the election proceedings in a free and fair manner.

According to the petitioner, the presentation plea seeks necessary directions to the Election Commission to not rescind the election, but merely to extend the completion of the same by deferring the poll to the constituency in question so as to allow the Petitioner's political party to field a genuine candidate who would substitute its erstwhile candidate who has so flagrantly defected to the BJP.

The petitioner has stated that they had approached the Election Commission with this request after the candidate set up by it to contest the polls, Rangja Khungur Basumatary, defected to BJP on the eve of the polls and much later than the last date of filing nominations

" Such ingenious method of sabotaging a political party from participating in elections is not only an affront to the democratic and constitutional spirit of free and fair elections but the inaction of the Election Commission in exercising its powers under Section 153 to ensure the furtherance of election in a free and fair manner is completely antithetical to the concept of equality before law enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution and a deprivation of the fundamental right of free speech and expression of the political party under Article 19 to express itself and seek votes through a candidate of its choice." The plea has stated.