Lok Sabha Election 2024 | Madras High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Tirunelveli BJP Candidate's Nomination

Update: 2024-04-16 15:36 GMT
Click the Play button to listen to article
story

The Madras High Court on Tuesday dismissed a plea challenging the nomination filed by Nainar Nagendran, BJP's candidate from Tirunelveli. Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad noted that it was too late to issue any direction at this point considering that the polling in the state of Tamil Nadu was scheduled to be held on 19th April.The petition was filed by one...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

The Madras High Court on Tuesday dismissed a plea challenging the nomination filed by Nainar Nagendran, BJP's candidate from Tirunelveli. 

Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad noted that it was too late to issue any direction at this point considering that the polling in the state of Tamil Nadu was scheduled to be held on 19th April.

The petition was filed by one V Maharajan from Madurai. In his plea, Maharajan had submitted that there was a case pending against Nagendran in Nanguneri Police Station for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 506(i), 109 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. He added that the details of the above case was deliberately concealed by Nagendran in all four of the nomination papers filed by him. 

Maharajan submitted that as per the rules, a nomination paper that is not completely filled is to be rejected immediately. Maharajan added that in Nagendran's nomination papers it was not specifically mentioned whether he was contesting on behalf of the Bharatiya Janata Party or as an independent candidate. Thus, it was argued that his nomination was to be rejected as per Sections 33, 33-A, 34 and 35 of the Representation of Peoples Act. 

Maharajan further submitted that though he had filed an objection petition against Nagendran's nomination, the Tirunelveli Parliamentary Election Officer haf declared his nomination valid without conducting proper inquiry or giving reasons. Pointing that the same was illegal, Maharajan speculated against the Election Officer and added that the authorities were swayed by influence and power. 

Thus, he had approached the court for conducting proper inquiry and reconsidering Nagendran's nomination. 

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 161

Case Title: V Maharajan v. The Election Commission 

Case No: WP(MD) 9171/2024

Tags:    

Similar News