The Supreme Court Today (Jan 3) refused to hear Congress MLA TD Rajegowda’s plea challenging “vague allegations” made by BJP leader DN Jeevaraja, who questioned his 2023 Karnataka election win in the High Court. Rajegowda argued the claims, like using black money, lacked evidence, but the Court noted evidence could be submitted later. It referred to its 2024 order allowing objections on evidence admissibility during trial, stating, “‘Admissibility’ or ‘relevance’ is the word used … It takes care of your concern.”
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India, on Friday, chose not to hear Karnataka Congress MLA TD Rajegowda’s petition, which challenged the “vague allegations” made against him in a case questioning his victory in the 2023 Karnataka Assembly elections.
The election petition was filed by BJP leader DN Jeevaraja, who had lost to Rajegowda in the Sringeri Assembly constituency.
This petition is currently being heard in the Karnataka High Court.
Allegations of Using Black Money Raised
During the Supreme Court hearing, Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing on behalf of Rajegowda, stated that Jeevaraja had made “vague allegations” like accusing Rajegowda of using black money during the election, without presenting any substantial evidence.
The Bench, consisting of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, refused to intervene in the case at this stage. The Court emphasized that the existing legal framework allows evidence to be presented in such cases.
“We were also concerned with vague allegations but there is a provision which allows evidence to be produced,”
-the Bench observed.
Supreme Court’s Reasoning Behind Refusal
The Court clearly stated its position by noting,
“We hold that there is no reason to entertain this at this point of time and can be suitably addressed.”
Rajegowda had previously moved a similar petition last year, also contesting the vague allegations raised against his election victory.
At that time, the Supreme Court had ruled that Rajegowda could raise objections to the relevance or admissibility of any evidence presented by Jeevaraja to support his claims during the trial.
“The Election Tribunal-cum-High Court is requested to consider such objections in accordance with law,”
-the Supreme Court had directed in its earlier order dated September 27, 2024.
Court Assures That Earlier Order Covers Rajegowda’s Concerns
During the current hearing, the Court reminded Rajegowda’s counsel that its previous order from 2024 already addressed his concerns.
“‘Admissibility’ or ‘relevance’ is the word used … It takes care of your concern,”
-the Bench clarified.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Patanjali Ayurved
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
