The Kerala High Court Today (April 23rd) rejected a PIL which alleged that Union Minister Rajeev Chandrasekhar has filed false affidavits in his nomination form for contesting the upcoming Lok Sabha elections as BJP candidate from the Thiruvananthapuram constituency.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Kochi: The Kerala High Court dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the veracity of the affidavits submitted by Union Minister Rajeev Chandrasekhar for his candidacy in the upcoming Lok Sabha elections. The Minister, representing the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), is slated to contest from the Thiruvananthapuram constituency. The petition accused him of submitting false information in his nomination papers.
The court, presided over by Justices VG Arun and S Manu, upheld the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) stance that challenges to a candidate’s nomination, once accepted by the returning officer, should be addressed through an election petition rather than a PIL. The Justices concurred, stating,
“As rightly contended by counsel for Election Commission of India, the remedy of the petitioner, if aggrieved by the acceptance of the affidavit filed by one of the candidates is to challenge the same in an election petition.”
Furthermore, the court acknowledged the absence of any legal requirement for the returning officer to provide a detailed rationale when deciding on complaints about discrepancies in a candidate’s election affidavit. This point was emphasized during the proceedings as the court queried the petitioners,
“Where is the statutory provision that says that a reasoned order must be given by the returning officer on complaints given to them?”
The lack of a detailed response from the returning officer to the discrepancies highlighted in Chandrasekhar’s affidavit was a significant grievance of the petitioners. Represented by Senior Advocate George Poonthottam, the petitioners expressed their frustration,
“Am I not entitled to know what is the action taken on the complaint?”
However, the court deemed that issue resolved, noting,
“That stage is over. Whether or not it was right of the returning officer to not give you a reasoned order, we cannot decide now. We cannot find a statutory provision also.”
In dismissing the plea, the court concluded that the question of whether the returning officer should have provided a reasoned order-
“cannot be decided at this point of time and no direction can be issued to him to communicate reasons for the decision on the complaint at this point of time.”
The petitioners, including advocate and Indian National Congress leader Avani Bansal and Renjith Thomas, argued that the omission of significant assets such as properties, luxury cars, and private jets, as well as the gross undervaluation of shares by Chandrasekhar, constituted a violation of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1950, and the Conduct of Election Rules 1961.
They contended that such practices were widespread among candidates, who often submitted false affidavits.
They claimed to have submitted prima facie evidence supporting their allegations, which, they argued, justified an official enquiry. Despite their efforts, the returning officer had yet to issue any order or findings on their complaint, they said.
They also highlighted that the lack of a reasoned order from the returning officer infringed upon their right to be informed about the acceptance or rejection of their allegations.
The petitioners had sought a directive from the High Court mandating the returning officer to issue a reasoned decision within two days, but this request was ultimately denied by the court.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Lok Sabha Elections
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
