By Dr. Gyan Pathak
Dismissal of the writ petition filed by Congress candidate Meenakshi Natarajan for Rajya Sabha Election from Madhya Pradesh against allegedly unfair rejection of her nomination papers by the Returning Officer is a significant development, since it was only yesterday June 11, the Supreme Court of India had admitted the petition to be heard on June 12 to examine the validity of the rejection order passed by the returning officer. However, when the case came for hearing before the bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice AS Chandurkar, it declined to intervene referring Constitutional Bar. The issue of validity of rejection, was not heard at all, and the bench gave her liberty to raise the challenge in an election petition filed in terms of the Representation of the People Act.
This decision of the Apex Court has come at a time when that elections in India have become controversial and the opposition have been regularly alleging that these are no longer free and fair, and Election Commission of India and the ruling establishment led by BJP under Prime Minister Narendra Modi have conspired to and engaged in unfair practices in favour of the BJP. When people can see the “glaring and manifest” example of unfairness, by the ECI officials favouring BJP against the Opposition, Supreme Court’s referring to Constitutional Bar in intervening in the election process one it sets in motion, is a matter of public concern, on account of “deferred justice” whatsoever be the region, even as per law. “Deferred justice” is a public concern and it will have its own impact on the people’s mind and their trust on judiciary.
Before going into the details what Supreme Court said in this matter, a brief background of the it would help to understand the situation in the current case. Rajya Sabha election for 3 seats in Madhya Pradesh were scheduled for June 18, with date of scrutiny of nomination papers on June 9, and the last date of withdrawal of candidature on June 11. Congress candidate Meenakshi Natarajan’s nomination papers were rejected by the Returning Officer over objections from the BJP candidates and leaders who complained that the Congress nominee had not disclosed in her affidavit the pendency of a criminal case against her before a Hyderabad court
What is the case? It is a private complaint by a Congress woman activists who had accused some senior leaders of misbehaving with her and said that as All-India Congress Committee in-charge of Telangana, Natarajan had failed to take action against her tormentors. It was clear that Natarajan was not even accused, but made a respondent no. 4 in the case. It is yet to become a criminal case because the court has not yet taken cognizance. Therefore no criminal case exists as of now.
Under the Representation of Peoples Act, persons filing nomination as a candidate to contest elections, need to disclose in an affidavit all criminal cases pending against them. The Returning Officer, rejected Natarajan’s nomination papers on the ground that she did not mention the case in question in her affidavit.
June 11, was the last date of withdrawal of nomination by candidate by 4 PM. After the rejection of Natarajan’s papers, there were no opposition candidates and all the three BJP’s candidates were to be announced elected unopposed. Keeping this in view, Meenakshi moved to Supreme Court seeking justice and prayed for stay on the returning officer’s decision. However, the Apex Court refused to stay, but agreed to examine the validity of the rejection order passed by the Returning Officer posted the case for hearing for June 12. The Bench was of the view that courts usually do not interfere in electoral disputes through urgent hearing.
Appearing for the Congress Candidate Abhishek Manu Singhvi had submitted that in cases of “glaring irregularities” the constitutional courts can always intervene. He had also urged the court to at least direct the ECI not to declare the results, since the court will be taking the matter on June 12. The court refused to pass such an order.
Meanwhile, all the three BJP candidates were declared elected unopposed, raising further the question of neutrality and fairness of the process. Section 33A of the RPI Act requires disclosure only of those cases that carry a punishment of two years or more and, above all, only of those cases in which charges have bee framed. It was even worse. Returning Officer had asked a BJP candidate to amend the affidavits to meet the mandatory requirements, that was clearly a favour to the BJP.
It sparked a great controversy. Senior Congress leader from Madhya Pradesh Digvijay Singh called the entire episode a case of “collusive theft” alleging that everyone was involved in the planned political operation. His comment came after Supreme Court hearing on June 11 in which he said, “I knew that when a theft has occurred, everyone is involved. Not just the state government, but the central government, the Election Commission and, I am compelled to say, the Supreme Court as well. When the Supreme Court knew that our petition would become infructuous after 4 pm, why was the hearing not held today? Why was it scheduled for tomorrow? This is all a case of collusive theft.” BJP criticised Digvijay Singh for his comments. Even Congress Leader Rahul alleged that after Vote Chori and Sarkar Chori the BJP-EC Jugalbandi has finished the Rajya Sabha elections before it even started and alleged ‘seat chori’ (theft of seat) by them.
On June 12, while dismissing Natarajan’s petition, the Supreme Court Bench said that the law in election-related disputes was settled that an election petition was not maintainable after the commencement of election process. The court refused to accept the argument that where the rejection of a nomination is ex facie illegal, manifestly arbitrary and demonstrably erroneous, the Court ought to intervene. The court said that such a distinction finds no place in Article 329(b) concerning challenges to elections for legislative posts of the Constitution. (IPA Service)
