LS Polls 2024: Allahabad HC Rejects Election Plea Of JKP Leader Who Intended To Contest Against PM Modi From Varanasi

A bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh dismissed Nandan's plea on merits, noting that he had approached the Court with a 19-day delay.

It may be noted that Section 81 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, provides a 45-day period from the date the returned candidate is returned for filing the election petition.

Further, Section 86 requires the High Courts to dismiss election petitions that do not comply with Sections 81, 82, and 117.

It may be noted that JKP Leader Vijay Nandan, who hails from Madhya Pradesh's Seoni District, has moved the High Court claiming that the District Election Officer wrongly rejected his nomination papers on the ground that the affidavit column was left blank and that no fresh affidavit was filed nor administered oath/affirmation.

The petitioner argues that after the documents on the checklist were properly received by the Assistant Returning Officer concerned, as per the rules of the Election Commission of India, the Returning Officer and Assistant Returning Officer were responsible for administering the oath/affirmation to the candidate.

The Petition states that after taking the oath/affirmation, the receipt seal was to be signed and given to the candidate; however, the same was not done, and his nomination paper was arbitrarily rejected.

Averments made in the election petition

The petition stated that a careful and exhaustive reading of the impugned nomination form rejection order of the Returning Officer (dated May 15, 2024) revealed a clerical mistake that could have been rectified at the time of scrutiny; however, the plea argued that the Returning Officer committed illegality by not doing so.

The petitioner had also contended that the candidature/nomination form of any candidature can be rejected only if there is any concealment of fact in giving a declaration, but in the present case, in the entire impugned order, nowhere is it mentioned that the petitioner concealed any information while submitting the candidature.

The petitioner had also submitted that if the affidavit column was left blank, it was the duty of the Returning Officer to rectify the mistake. Instead of redressing the clerical error, the Returning Officer, in gross violation of natural justice, rejected the petitioner's candidature/nomination form, which isn't justifiable, the plea argued.

“Had the Returning Officer acted illegally and in consonance with law, he would have accepted the nomination forms submitted by the petitioner and allowed him to contest election. By depriving the petitioner of his valuable right to contest election, the respondent no.4 has acted contrary to law and his decision deserves to be interfered by this Hon'ble Court,” the Petition stated.

The petition also stated that the Assistant Returning Officer did not follow the rules of the Election Commission, which is why the Assistant Returning Officer is eligible for criminal punishment as per the rules of the Election Commission.

“140 Crore citizen of India trust the Honorable Election Commission and cast their votes for the MPs in the Lok Sabha elections to elect the Prime Minister and Chief Minister of our country who can develop the country on which the District Election Officer plays an important role. But Varanasi District Election Officer has violated all the rules to benefit a particular person by breaking the trust of 140 Crore citizens of India,” the Petition stated.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi won the Varanasi seat, defeating Congress' Ajay Rai by 152,513 votes. This was the lowest margin he had won the seat with since 2014. Seven candidates, including PM Modi, had contested from the Varanasi seat, as the DEO had rejected 36 nomination papers.