In an order dated August 29, Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav ruled that the plea filed by former JDU member Govind Yadav lacked merit and that there was no reason to intervene in the internal party decisions made by the JDU.
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a plea challenging Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar’s election as the President of the Janata Dal United (JDU).
In an order dated August 29, Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav ruled that the plea filed by former JDU member Govind Yadav lacked merit and that there was no reason to intervene in the internal party decisions made by the JDU.
“The petition is without merit and does not fall within the jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed along with pending applications. No order as to costs,”
the Court stated.
Yadav’s plea sought to annul changes made in the JDU’s records maintained by the Election Commission of India (ECI), arguing that these changes violated Section 29A(9) of the Representation of the People Act.
Section 29A(9) mandates that any changes in a registered political party’s name, head office, office-bearers, address, or other material matters must be promptly communicated to the ECI.
Yadav also sought a declaration from the Court that internal party elections conducted by the JDU in 2016, 2019, and 2022 were in breach of the party’s constitution.
The Court noted that a similar dispute had been raised by a JDU faction before, and the ECI had ruled in favor of Kumar in November 2017.
The faction led by Kumar had shown overwhelming support within both the legislative wing and the National Council of the party, leading the ECI to recognize this faction as the legitimate JDU under paragraph 15 of the Symbols Order.
As a result, this faction was granted the right to use the reserved symbol, the Arrow, as the official State party in Bihar.
READ ALSO: Nitish Kumar Justifies Quota Benefits in Supreme Court, Citing Educational Disparities
Justice Kaurav concluded that the reliefs sought by Yadav were beyond the scope of Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act.
Advocate Pathak Rakesh Kaushik represented petitioner Govind Yadav, while Advocates Sidhant Kumar and Om Batra appeared for the Election Commission of India.
[Case Title: Govind Yadav v Union of India & Ors]
