Today, On 7th January, The Supreme Court has issued a notice on Maneka Gandhi’s appeal challenging the Allahabad High Court’s dismissal of her election petition. Gandhi had contested the election of Samajwadi Party’s Rambhual Nishad in the 2024 Sultanpur Lok Sabha elections. During the hearing, the Court emphasized the need for legislative reviews to address legal deficiencies and grey areas. The appeal will be further reviewed by the apex court in due course.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court issued a notice in an appeal filed by former BJP MP Maneka Gandhi against the dismissal of her election petition by the Allahabad High Court. The Supreme Court proposed that there should be periodic reviews of laws and that an expert body should evaluate whether legislative enactments are achieving their intended purposes.
A two-judge bench, consisting of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, was hearing a Writ Petition filed by former Union Minister and Member of Parliament Maneka Gandhi.
The petition, which challenged the election of Samajwadi Party’s Rambhual Nishad in the 2024 Sultanpur Lok Sabha elections, was previously dismissed on technical grounds. Maneka Gandhi’s election petition questioned the validity of Nishad’s election, raising concerns about the electoral process.
During the hearing, Justice Kant stated,
“With every law, there should be a legislative review. Reviews should not only be confined to judicial reviews; there should be legislative reviews of laws from time to time. You may have it every 20 years, 25 years, or 50 years.”
Justice Kant proposed the establishment of an expert body to conduct periodic legislative reviews, stating,
“One should have an expert body to determine whether a law has functioned effectively, what its intended purpose was, and whether it has truly succeeded in achieving that purpose. If not, what are the deficiencies, bottlenecks, and grey areas that need to be addressed?”
Agreeing with Justice Kant, Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra remarked,
“There has to be an audit of legislations. We can’t have legislations that are cast in stone. There should be a stimulus for change either from the Court or elsewhere that prompts an amendment.”
In August, the Allahabad High Court dismissed Maneka Gandhi’s election petition against Rambhual Nishad, who defeated her in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, on the grounds that her petition was filed past the prescribed limitation period.
However, the Allahabad High Court ruled the petition inadmissible under Section 81 read with Section 86 of the Representation of People Act, 1951. These provisions prescribe strict time limits and procedural requirements for filing election petitions, and the High Court found that Gandhi’s petition did not comply with these mandatory provisions.
In her appeal to the Supreme Court, Gandhi has sought to set-aside the High Court’s decision and reinstate her election petition for consideration on merits. She also raised a challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 81 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, which sets a limitation period of 45 days for filing election petitions from the date of election results.
The Court stated,
“The election petition has apparently been filed beyond the period of 45 days prescribed in Section 81 of the Act 1951. Section 86 of the Act 1951 provides that the High Court shall dismiss an election petition that does not comply with the provisions of Section 81, Section 82, or Section 117 of the Act 1951.”
Despite taking up the appeal, the Supreme Court declined to entertain Gandhi’s plea questioning Section 81’s validity. The apex court, however, agreed to examine the dismissal of her petition and issued a notice to the respondents, including Rambhual Nishad.
The case highlights critical issues surrounding election laws in India, particularly the stringent procedural requirements that often determine the fate of election disputes. The outcome of this appeal could have implications for future challenges to the Representation of People Act’s provisions and their application in election-related cases.
Siddharth Luthra argued that the limitation period under Section 29(2) of the Representation of the People Act (RPA) is “not an express exclusion,” urging the Bench to reconsider the law in light of a candidate suppressing material facts regarding four criminal cases.
This prompted Justice Kant to respond, “We don’t want to open the floodgate.”
Justice Kant cautioned that if the argument is made that the 45-day limitation period is “bad” and the Court chooses to extend it, that would equate to the Court engaging in legislative action.
Luthra clarified that he was not asking the Court to legislate but rather to acknowledge that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Hukumdev Narain Yadav vs. Lalit Narain (1973) effectively legislated and thus requires reconsideration. In Hukum Dev, the Supreme Court noted that whether the sections of the Limitation Act apply to a specific legislative enactment should not be determined solely by a reading of the relevant sections of the Limitation Act. It emphasized that an enactment must be examined holistically to ascertain whether it falls under any sections of the Limitation Act.
Regarding Section 29 of the RPA, the Court indicated that even if there is no explicit exclusion of the Limitation Act, as mandated by Section 29(2), the RPA, being a complete code in itself, would not be bound by the Limitation Act.
The Bench stated that it did not wish to engage in interpretations of Section 29 of the RPA in this petition, noting,
“This is an argument available to you in your civil appeal where your election petition has been dismissed relying on Hukum Dev. There, you can argue that this is not good law and requires consideration by a larger Bench.”
Following the Bench’s suggestion, Luthra stated he would withdraw the Writ Petition. The Bench permitted him to raise specific requests made in the Writ Petition during the civil appeal. In the civil appeal, the Court issued a notice and granted four weeks for a reply to be filed.
Case Title
Maneka Sanjay Gandhi v. Union of India [W.P.(C) No. 588/2024] with Maneka Sanjay Gandhi v. Rambhual Nishad And Ors. [C.A. No. 10644/2024]