[Indore Lok Sabha Elections] MP High Court Declines Plea Of Congress' 'Substitute' Candidate Whose Nomination Was Rejected From Contesting As 'Approved' Candidate
A division bench of Madhya Pradesh High has refused to interfere with a single judge bench order holding that a 'substitute candidate' fielded by the Congress Party cannot be considered as an 'approved candidate' due to the withdrawal of the initially approved candidate from the Lok Sabha Elections 2024.The single bench had held that if the substitute candidate's form is signed by only...
A division bench of Madhya Pradesh High has refused to interfere with a single judge bench order holding that a 'substitute candidate' fielded by the Congress Party cannot be considered as an 'approved candidate' due to the withdrawal of the initially approved candidate from the Lok Sabha Elections 2024.
The single bench had held that if the substitute candidate's form is signed by only one proposer, on acceptance of the form of the 'approved candidate', the form of the substitute candidate would become liable to be rejected.
The Division Bench of the High Court affirmed the findings of the single-judge bench that a substitute candidate is required to submit part II of the nomination form with the signatures of 10 proposers or file another nomination form as an independent candidate in order to become eligible for consideration as an 'approved candidate' at a later point if the originally 'approved' candidate withdraws.
Justices Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Gajendra Singh concluded that since the nomination of 'substitute candidate' fielded by Indian National Congress, Moti Singh, had already been rejected on 25.04.2024, and since such rejection of nomination was never challenged by him, there does not arise a question of such a candidate contesting the elections at Indore as an 'approved candidate' of the party later.
Relying on various precedents, the counsel for the state had argued that the High Court's interference by entertaining Article 226 petitions is not desirable in matters such as this one. The counsel added that issuing directions after the commencement of the electoral process has the effect of interpreting, impeding or protracting the election proceedings. To avoid such situations, the remedy can be availed by the aggrieved candidate only after the completion of the election process by way of filing an election petition, the counsel impressed upon the court.
“...Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the principles laid down in the case of Election Commission of India (supra) and Manda Jagannath (supra), we find force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents. When the impugned order is tested on the anvil of the above facts, we do not perceive any error therein…”, the bench sitting at Indore inferred after hearing both parties.
It is pertinent to note here that respondent no.4, Dr. Akshay Bam, who was nominated as the 'approved candidate' by the Congress Party, withdrew from the contest on 29.04.2024, days after the acceptance of his nomination as the 'approved candidate'. Thereafter, Moti Singh submitted a representation to the Election entities to declare him as the 'approved candidate' instead and allot the official symbol of INC accordingly, which wasn't considered. As a result, Moti Singh approached the High Court.
According to the appellant, only an independent candidate would be required to obtain the signatures of 10 proposers and not a candidate like himself who was initially nominated as a 'substitute candidate' by INC. As per the appellant counsel's version, there are two stages as per Form-B in which a 'substitute candidate' can replace an 'approved' candidate: i) the 'approved' candidate's nomination getting rejected upon scrutiny, and ii) the 'approved' candidate himself withdrawing from the contest. In the current case, respondent No. 4 withdrew his candidature at the second stage, which made the substitute candidate eligible, it was submitted.
The appellant's counsel referred to Section 33(1) of the Representation of People Act, 1951, to try and establish that a candidate on behalf of a political party can submit the nomination form only with one signature of an elector in the constituency. For this reason, the returning officer erred in rejecting his nomination by not granting at least a day's time as per Proviso to sub Section (5) of Section 36 for obtaining 10 signatures as a non-approved candidate, it was contended.
The counsel appearing for the Election Commission, Election Officer, and Returning Officer of Indore Constituency also iterated that the appellant's argument that statutory provisions would have an overriding effect over the 2023 Handbook and the Election Symbols Order, 1968 cannot be countenanced when these 'executive instructions' have not been challenged specifically by the appellant.
Earlier, the counsel for respondent no.4 had made a slew of submissions before the single-judge bench. According to the counsel, Clauses 6.10.3 (ii) and 7 of the Handbook of the Returning Officer, 2023 suggest that only if the nomination paper of the main approved candidate of the party is rejected, then the substitute candidate will be treated as the candidate of the party, provided the party has already intimated his name as a 'substitute' candidate.
For becoming eligible in the second stage as an approved' candidate of the party upon withdrawal of the originally 'approved' candidate, the nomination paper of the substitute candidate should have been accepted on scrutiny as an independent candidate, and he should still be a contesting candidate, the counsel had added.
For Appellant: Vibhor Khandelwal, Advocate along with Shri Jayesh Gurnani, Advocate
For Respondents 1-3: Ms. Mini Ravindran, Advocate
Case Title: Moti Singh v. Election Commission of India Through Chief Election Commissioner & Ors.
Case No: Writ Appeal No. 1039 of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 98