Today, On 10th March, The Delhi High Court dismissed unnecessary delays in AAP leader Somnath Bharti’s plea challenging BJP MP Bansuri Swaraj’s election, stating, “This isn’t a post office; we can’t waste judicial time.” Bharti has alleged electoral malpractices and sought a review of the 2024 Lok Sabha election results. The court emphasized the need for substantial grounds in election petitions. Further hearings will determine the case’s merit.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court is set to hear a petition filed by AAP leader Somnath Bharti, challenging the election of BJP MP Bansuri Swaraj from the New Delhi Lok Sabha constituency in the 2024 General Elections.
Bharti has alleged that Swaraj’s election influenced by corrupt practices, making the results legally questionable.
In his plea, Somnath Bharti cited various alleged violations of election laws, including misuse of government resources, unfair campaign tactics, and voter manipulation. He has urged the court to examine whether the election process adhered to the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which governs the conduct of free and fair elections in India.
The court criticized the increasing trend of using proxy counsel for procedural matters, highlighting the importance of direct accountability. These remarks came after Somnath Bharti claimed that the other party had not served written submissions.
Upon further examination, Bharti explained that he had been busy with election duties during the previous hearing, and his counsel appeared only as a proxy, lacking the authority to make any substantive arguments.
Justice Dayal expressed his disapproval, stating that the court would not accept submissions regarding the non-receipt of documents.
He emphasized,
“This is not a post office. We cannot allow judicial time to be wasted.”
The judge further noted that the court sought to reform legal practices, not just in this case but in all similar situations.
He remarked,
“Make sure all documents are sent to the other party. It’s not just in your matters but in many matters. Judicial time is being wasted. Advocates come in and say notices were not issued—we are becoming a post office.”
Advocate Rajeev Sharma, representing Swaraj, refuted Bharti’s claim, stating that the written statement had been filed on time and properly served to Bharti. In response, Bharti indicated his intention to file a replication once he received the written statement.
However, Swaraj’s counsel argued that the time to file a replication had already lapsed, as the prescribed thirty-day period had expired, and pointed out that Bharti raised the issue three months later, thus forfeiting his right to file a replication.
Counsel for Swaraj pointed out that a court order from December 2024 revealed that Bharti’s legal representative had already requested additional time to file the replication, which he argued confirmed that the written statement had indeed been served. Bharti, however, insisted that he had been preoccupied with election duties and that his counsel had appeared only as a proxy without the authority to make substantive submissions.
Also Read: [AAP vs BJP] “Preservation of Each EVM’s Data Will Cost Rs 40,000”: ECI Tells Delhi HC
The court firmly stated that it would not acknowledge Bharti’s assertion regarding the non-receipt of the written statement. It also criticized the practice of using proxy counsel to seek adjournments, underscoring the need for legal representatives to take direct responsibility for their cases instead of depending on proxies.
When Bharti continued to voice his objections, the court cautioned that further objections might lead to the imposition of costs. Bharti claimed ignorance regarding the filing of the written statement and noted the absence of an affidavit of service. In response, Advocate Sharma highlighted that Bharti had the option to inspect the court files to verify the situation.
After confirming that the written statement had been properly served and that an email with the statement had been sent to Bharti’s office, the court denied his request to file a replication. Ultimately, the court dismissed Bharti’s plea and scheduled the case for further proceedings before the Joint Registrar on April 17, 2025.
Bansuri Swaraj, daughter of former External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj, contested the 2024 Lok Sabha elections as a BJP candidate and won from the New Delhi constituency, defeating AAP’s Somnath Bharti.
However, Bharti claims that her victory was achieved through unlawful means and has sought the cancellation of her election.
Election petitions like these are not uncommon in Indian politics, where losing candidates often challenge results based on allegations of malpractices, rigging, or violation of election codes. The Delhi High Court’s decision on this case will set a precedent for similar election disputes in the country.
As the case unfolds, it remains to be seen whether the court finds sufficient evidence to intervene in the election outcome or uphold Bansuri Swaraj’s victory.
The contest for the New Delhi Lok Sabha seat was a closely watched battle, with both Bharti and Swaraj as the main contenders. The final vote count revealed Bharti secured 3,74,815 votes while Swaraj polled a higher 4,53,185 votes. The petition further elaborates on the strategies used during the campaign, which Bharti alleges were designed to improperly influence voters.
A notable aspect of the petition is the role of Raaj Kumar Anand, a former AAP minister who contested the 2024 Sabha polls on a Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) ticket. The plea alleges that Anand’s participation was strategically planned to dilute AAP’s vote share, ultimately benefiting Swaraj.
The petitioner, Bharti, expressed shock at the activities he witnessed on election day, which are now part of the legal challenge.