Today, 12th April, A petition filed in the Supreme Court calls on the Election Commission to address ‘arbitrary’ rejection of nomination papers. The plea challenges the unchecked discretion of returning officers in rejecting candidates’ papers. The petition highlights concerns over lack of defined criteria leading to unfair rejections. It seeks urgent intervention ahead of upcoming elections to ensure fairness and transparency in the nomination process.
New Delhi: A petition submitted to the Supreme Court requesting instructions for the Election Commission to restrain the “arbitrary and mala fide” actions of returning officers in rejecting candidates’ nomination papers nationwide.
Section 36 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 addresses the examination of nomination papers by the returning officer (RO) in elections and its sub-section 4 says the “RO shall not reject any nomination paper on the ground of any defect which is not of a substantial character”.
Read Also: Is extending SC/ST reservation in Lok Sabha and State Assemblies valid?
Jawahar Kumar Jha, an Independent candidate from Bihar’s Banka parliamentary seat, approached the court after his nomination papers were rejected, seeking redress against what he sees as unjustified decisions by the returning officer. Through his lawyer Alakh Alok Srivastava, Jha also asking the court to prevent similar arbitrary and mala fide actions by returning officers throughout India.
The plea requested,
“Issue an urgent and appropriate writ, order, or direction to precisely delineate defects of substantial character as per Section 36 (4) of the Representation of the People Act.”
Section 36 (4) of the Act, 1951 specifies that the returning officer cannot dismiss any nomination paper due to a defect that not of a ‘substantial character’.
It noted,
“There is no explicit definition to determine what qualifies as a defect of substantial character. Consequently, due to this lack of clarity, Election Returning Officers frequently reject candidates’ nomination papers in a completely arbitrary and capricious manner.”
It expressed,
“The unrestrained, unclear, discretionary, and arbitrary use of authority by Returning Officers poses a serious threat to our democracy. The concern raised was about eligible and popular candidates occasionally being excluded based on irrelevant factors, while unsuitable candidates are occasionally approved despite obvious flaws in their nomination forms.”
It also requested that Returning Officers nationwide be directed “to ensure every candidate is given a fair chance, at least one day, to rectify any defects identified in their election nomination papers.”
Jha also requested that the poll panel and the RO of Banka be directed “to nullify the Press Release dated April 05, 2024 issued by the Public Relation Office, Banka, through which the nomination of the Petitioner arbitrarily rejected” and recognized him as a valid candidate.
Read Also: SC: Can’t get into between rivalry
The plea stated that the RO and the observer acted in an “utterly mala fide and arbitrary manner” in rejecting Jha’s nomination form, seemingly with an ulterior motive of benefiting the candidate belonging to the governing authority.
The statement noted,
“This is evident from the fact that rather than identifying all shortcomings/ defects in the Petitioner’s Nomination Form at once, the Returning Officer continued to identify different defects at different times until the end.”
Elections for the Banka parliamentary constituency are scheduled for April 26.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE