The Supreme Court Today (April 30) dismissed 2021 petitions challenging a Bombay High Court order that cleared allegations against Union Minister Nitin Gadkari over his 2019 election. A bench led by Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh found no reason to interfere with the High Court’s ruling.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India today heard a case against the Bombay High Court’s decision. This case is connected to Union Minister Nitin Gadkari and an election-related dispute.
The High Court had earlier removed some serious accusations made in an election petition filed against Mr. Gadkari. Now, this decision is being challenged in the Supreme Court before a bench consisting of Justice Surya Kant and Justice N.K. Singh.
ALSO READ: LawChakra Campus Ambassador Program 2.0: Boost Your Legal Career This Summer | Apply Now!
During the hearing, the lawyer representing the petitioner argued that the Bombay High Court had wrongly removed certain written statements from the election petition. These statements were important because they referred to the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, where Nitin Gadkari contested and won.
At this point, Justice Surya Kant asked the lawyer,
“Please explain what the problem is with the order.”
This means the Court wanted to know clearly what issue the petitioner had with the High Court’s ruling.
In reply, the lawyer pointed towards a property-related matter. He said that Nitin Gadkari had claimed the property was part of his Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), but in reality, the property was registered in his personal name. This, according to the petitioner, was a serious discrepancy.
However, Justice S Kant responded firmly, saying,
“I fully agree with the reasoning given by the High Court regarding the land issue. It has rightly observed that the essential nature and character of the property in question have not changed over time.”
Further, Justice Surya Kant explained that while it is acceptable to question cases where facts are hidden or not disclosed, this was not such a situation.
He said,
“While it is understandable to raise concerns in cases where facts are hidden or not disclosed, that is not the case here. In fact, the individual has clearly disclosed all necessary information about the property. Therefore, it would not be just or fair to accuse him of any concealment.”
He added again for clarity,
“Therefore, it would not be just or fair to accuse him of any concealment. The records show that the details of the property were properly declared as required by law. We must maintain fairness in our approach and avoid making assumptions when there is clear evidence of transparency and compliance.”
This statement made it clear that the Court was satisfied with the disclosure made by Nitin Gadkari regarding his property.
But the petitioner’s lawyer raised another allegation. He said that the second major issue was about disclosure of income and assets. According to him, the whole purpose of disclosure is to let voters know exactly what assets and income a candidate owns.
He claimed that when the petitioner filed an RTI (Right to Information) application, it was revealed that Mr. Gadkari was earning much more income than what he had declared during the election.
The lawyer also referred to a newspaper report.
He said,
“At first glance, the newspaper report suggests that if there had been a trial, certain important questions would have been asked to him.”
However, Justice S Kant dismissed this argument, stating,
“A newspaper report isn’t trustworthy evidence. Since you are the one challenging the election, the burden of proof is on you.”
This means that the Court does not consider newspaper articles as solid proof, and it is the petitioner’s responsibility to provide proper evidence.
In conclusion, the Court observed that Gadkari’s term following his 2019 election had already concluded, and he had since been re-elected in the 2024 Lok Sabha polls.
Nonetheless, the parties were given a hearing. After considering their arguments, the Court agreed with the High Court’s reasoning and found no basis to overturn the challenged order.
CASE TITLE:
MD. NAFIS vs NITIN JAIRAM GADKARI
SLP(C) No.12480/2021 (and connected case)
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Nitin Gadkari
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
