Today, 30th April, The Gujarat High Court issued a response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning the uncontested victory of the BJP in Surat. The court’s reaction comes in the wake of legal challenges raised against the electoral process, signalling a judicial review of the political circumstances surrounding the election. This move highlights the importance of transparency and fairness in democratic procedures, especially in contested political environments. The High Court’s involvement reflects a broader commitment to upholding legal standards in electoral outcomes.
Gujarat: The Gujarat High Court, On Tuesday, decided against urgently scheduling a hearing for a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that questions the uncontested election of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) candidate Mukesh Dalal to the Surat Lok Sabha seat in the 2024 General Elections.
This request brought before the division bench, led by Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Aniruddha Mayee, by an attorney representing a Surat voter challenging Dalal’s election.
Chief Justice Agarwal responded, emphasizing adherence to established legal procedures for election grievances. She stated,
“That is as per the procedure, you file an election petition to challenge the election. Whatever may be the ground, Mr. Counsel. You know the procedure. The law is that if you are making any dispute with regard to the election of any candidate for any reason, you have to file an election petition,”
Read Also: Gujarat HC Dismisses Compensation Challenges in Sabarmati Ashram Redevelopment
The High Court addressed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning the election of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) candidate Mukesh Dalal to the Surat Lok Sabha constituency. Dalal elected unopposed after other candidates withdrew or disqualified, leading to no actual voting taking place.
During the proceedings, Justice Sunita Agarwal highlighted the legal standing of unopposed candidates, stating,
“If a candidate is elected, uncontested, he is also in the same position as a winning candidate who has been declared a winning candidate after the process of polling and counting of votes. He doesn’t fall in any other different criteria and there is no provision in the Representation of Peoples Act to treat him differently,”
The discussion in court also touched upon the legitimacy of using a PIL for election related disputes. The counsel representing the voter who filed the PIL argued for the recognition of the “negative vote” option, which wasn’t available to voters in Surat due to the absence of an election.
However, the court maintained a firm stance on the appropriate procedures for contesting elections, with Justice Agarwal questioning the appropriateness of a PIL in this context,
“Why would you file a PIL in an election matter? And why would we entertain a PIL?”
The court further elucidated that such disputes should be addressed through election petitions, as prescribed by law.
Justice Agarwal explained,
“You are highlighting the flaw in the process procedure by which a candidate has been declared a winning candidate. Is this your argument? Yes. So this argument falls within the jurisdiction of an authority which is by way of an election petition,”
Read Also: Gujarat HC: Police Extortion Turns Protectors into Perpetrators
Ultimately, the court expressed its stance on the misuse of PILs for election disputes, underscoring the existence of statutory remedies.
Justice Agarwal declared, thereby rejecting the request for urgent listing of the PIL, emphasizing the need to follow proper legal channels for election disputes,
“We are on the first principle. So if you have a remedy, why would you come in PIL, and if there is a structure provided. The Representation of Peoples Act provides the procedure, why would we entertain PIL,”
This case sparked a broader discussion about the electoral process and the measures in place to ensure fair competition, with significant implications for the perception of democracy in the region.