The Supreme Court of India has issued notices to the Election Commission and the District Magistrate of Gautam Buddha Nagar regarding a petition contesting the High Court’s removal of these parties in an election petition. The Supreme Court expressed concern over excluding the district magistrate, emphasizing their crucial role in the nomination process. Further hearings are scheduled for March 24.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Thursday (Jan 2nd) issued notices to the Election Commission of India (ECI) and the District Magistrate of Gautam Buddha Nagar in response to a petition challenging an Allahabad High Court order that removed them as parties in an election petition.
A bench led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing a plea filed by Geeta Rani Sharma, who alleged that her nomination papers for the 2019 Lok Sabha elections in the Gautam Buddha Nagar constituency of Uttar Pradesh were wrongfully rejected.
While issuing the notices, the Supreme Court bench expressed concerns over the High Court’s decision to exclude the district magistrate from the case. The CJI remarked,
“As per the allegations, the nomination papers were wrongly rejected. The winning candidate would not be able to answer the said assertions. The high court was wrong in deleting at least the district magistrate from the array of parties.”
The court emphasized the need for the district magistrate’s inclusion, as they play a pivotal role in the election process, particularly in the scrutiny and acceptance or rejection of nomination papers.
The petition is now scheduled for further hearing in the week starting March 24.
The petition, filed under Section 100(1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, challenges the validity of the election, alleging irregularities in the rejection of nomination papers by the returning officer.
Initially, the petition named the Election Commission, District Magistrate, winning BJP candidate Mahesh Sharma, and other candidates, including Bhim Prakash Jiyasu and Kishor Singh, as respondents. However, the Allahabad High Court, citing Section 82 of the Representation of the People Act, ruled that the ECI and district magistrate were not necessary parties and removed them from the case.
Section 82 specifies that election petitions must include the returned candidate (winner) and other contesting candidates as respondents. The High Court ruled that the petitioner must adhere strictly to these stipulations and could not include parties at her discretion.
However, the Supreme Court highlighted a potential oversight, noting that while Section 82 does not explicitly mention the Election Commission or district magistrate, their roles in the election process, particularly in the scrutiny of nominations, are critical.
This case could have significant implications for interpreting the Representation of the People Act and determining the scope of relevant parties in election petitions. The Supreme Court’s decision may clarify whether officials involved in procedural decisions, like returning officers or district magistrates, can be made parties to such petitions.
As the Supreme Court examines this issue, its ruling will be closely watched for its potential impact on election law and future petitions challenging the fairness of electoral processes.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE