Case Title : Moti Singh vs Election Commission Of India Through Chief Election Commissioner & Ors.
Case no : Writ Petition No. 1039 of 2024
Order no : 3rd May, 2024Moti Singh v. Election Commission of India Through Chief Election Commissioner & Ors.
Quorum : Hon’ble Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Hon’ble Justice Gajendra Singh
FACTS OF THE CASE
The Election commission of India on 16/03/2024 announced the General Elections for the House of People. Both the Petitioner and the Respondent filed their nominations before the said date in the prescribed format as required under Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. Indian National Congress declared Respondent No.4 as ‘approved candidate’ and the Appellate as a ‘substitute candidate’
On 29/04/2024 the approved candidate (respondent no.4) withdrew his nomination, following the Appellant submitted a request to declare him as the ‘approved candidate’ of INC. Subsequently the same was declined by the Returning Officer and he was deprived of his Legal right. As stating that it was necessary according to Sec 33(1) of the Representation of Peoples Act the candidate is supposed to submit the nomination with 10 proposers signatures.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Article 226 of the Indian Constitution : Clearly states that every High Court has the powers throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction to issue writ or any order to any person or authority.
- Sub-Section (1) of Section 33 of The Representation of People Act , 1951 : A candidate not set up by a recognised political Party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from the constituency unless the nomination paper is subscribed by 10 proposers being elector of the constituency.
- Sub-Section(5) of Section 36 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 : The returning officer shall hold the scrutiny on the date appointed in this behalf under clause (b) of section 30 and shall not allow any adjournment of the proceedings except when such proceedings are interrupted or obstructed by riot or open violence or by causes beyond his control:
Provided that in case an objection is raised by the returning officer or is made by any other person the candidate concerned may be allowed time to rebut it not later than the next day but one following the date fixed for scrutiny, and the returning officer shall record his decision on the date to which the proceedings have been adjourned.
CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT
The counsel for the appellant argued that the Learned Judge had overlooked the Provisions of the Representation of the Peoples Act which mentioned that only one single signature was required. The appellant also submitted that according to Section 36(5) of the Act the candidate must be given one day’s time to collect the signatures yet the Returning Officer rejected the appellants claim.
As a result the Appellant claimed that he was entitled to contest in the parliamentary elections.
CONTENTION OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent’s counsel requested the court to dismiss the Petition as the High Court cannot entertain a petition under article 226 of the constitution once the electoral process has begun as it would be obstructing the electoral process.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT
The court after considering the facts and circumstances of the case dismissed the Appeal as to finding force in the contentions put forth by the Learned counsel of the Respondent.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGMENT REVIEWED BY – Nagashree N M
