Today(on 4th July),The Delhi High Court dismissed petitions requesting video recordings of election processes in Fatehpur Sikri and Aligarh Lok Sabha constituencies, citing jurisdictional limitations as the events occurred outside Delhi.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Today(on 4th July), The Delhi High Court dismissed petitions seeking the supply of video recordings of the election process in the Fatehpur Sikri and Aligarh Lok Sabha constituencies in Uttar Pradesh. The court’s decision was based on jurisdictional grounds, emphasizing that the primary events in question occurred outside Delhi.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, presiding over the case, stated that the mere fact that the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) office is located in Delhi does not warrant the high court’s jurisdiction over matters that transpired outside its territorial bounds.
The judge noted-
“Simply because the Election Commission of India (ECI) has its office in Delhi does not justify entertaining the petition in this high court, as all ‘integral and essential facts’ are outside its jurisdiction.”
The petitions were filed by Bijendra Singh and Ramnath Singh, who had contested the 2024 elections from Aligarh and Fatehpur Sikri, respectively. They sought access to the video footage on grounds of observing “certain irregularities” during the counting process. Their plea was predicated on the need to verify these alleged discrepancies.
ALSO READ:Delhi HC: Expansion of ‘Civil Judge Jurisdiction’ in Delhi District Court
Justice Kaurav elaborated-
“There is no dispute that the petitioner is seeking video recordings within the jurisdiction of Uttar Pradesh (UP) concerning the parliamentary elections in Fatehpur Sikri and Aligarh. The elections were conducted in UP, and the video recordings were also made in UP. Both petitioners are residents of UP, and the request for the video recording copy was submitted to the returning officer in UP.”
The court further clarified the jurisdictional issue, stating-
“While the Election Commission of India’s office falls within our territorial jurisdiction and part of the cause of action is claimed here, this alone does not justify invoking Article 226 jurisdiction for a writ petition when a significant portion of the cause of action occurred outside the high court’s limits. Therefore, the present writ petition is dismissed.”
Justice Kaurav advised the petitioners that they were free to seek appropriate remedies before a competent court within Uttar Pradesh, implying that the matter should be addressed within the jurisdiction where the events occurred.
The petitioners’ lawyer, Mehmood Pracha, argued that the petitions were maintainable as the grievance pertained to the ECI, headquartered in Delhi, and thus fell under the high court’s purview. He contended that adherence to the ECI’s rules and regulations was central to their petition.
ALSO READ:Delhi court comes down heavily on Delhi police
However, Advocate Sidhant Kumar, representing the ECI, opposed this view, maintaining that the petitions were not maintainable in the Delhi High Court. He asserted-
“The elections took place in Uttar Pradesh, recording occurred there, and the office of the returning officer was also situated in Uttar Pradesh.”
