Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging 2019 Election Of Shiromani Akali Dal's Sukhbir Singh Badal To Lok Sabha
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) leader and MP Sukhbir Singh Badal's election in 2019 general elections, noting that an election petition cannot be entertained based on vague averments.
The election petition had alleged that Badal failed to disclose details of dependent daughters in Form 26, omitted expenditure incurred during rallies addressed by former Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal and had engaged in corrupt practices such as the distribution of liquor to influence voters.
Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya in his order said said, “Merely because the respondent has daughters, would in itself not make them dependent too. It is not a case that a daughter cannot but be dependent on father. Therefore, in the absence of material facts regarding non-furnishing of complete particulars in Form 26, the charge is unsustainable.”
The Court further highlighted that, “so far as the allegation regarding corrupt practice of distributing liquor and cash by Satinder Singh Manta is concerned, it is also bereft of material facts. There is no fact pleaded as to at what time, where and to whom Manta was distributing liquor; nor is it the allegation that it was being done with the consent of the respondent or his election agent. Therefore, all vital facts regarding the alleged corrupt practice are missing.”
With respect to allegations on non-disclosure of election expenses, the Court noted that, “as per Section 123 (vi) of the RPA, incurring or authorising of expenditure in contravention of Section 77 is a corrupt practice. There is no such allegation so far as incurring of expenditure by the respondent is concerned; it is nowhere mentioned that he incurred or authorised incurring of expenditure beyond the limits prescribed under Section 77 of the RPA.”
These observations were made while hearing the plea of one Kashmir Singh under Section 80, 80-A read with Sections 81, 100 and 101 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 for setting aside and declaring election of Badal as void, who was elected from Firozepur Parliamentary Constituency in the 2019 Lok Sabha Elections.
After examining the submissions, the Court addressed each ground of the challenge and rejected them.
Among other grounds, it was alleged that Badal has not published the list of criminal cases in newspapers and media as per the requirements of the Rules, etc.
"This allegation also lacks material particulars, as none of the criminal cases the respondent is alleged to have been involved in, nor have the particulars of the rules said to have been violated by him in this regard been given," said the Court.
Justice Dahiya also rejected the contention that the police party of Police Station Sadar had confiscated huge quantity of liquor, and it was general opinion that it belonged to the respondent and would be distributed to electors of the area.
"This again is a vague statement bereft of any material fact; neither quantity of liquor, nor the place, date, time of confiscation, or the basis of its attribution to the respondent or his election agent has been alleged. Further, the allegation is that as per 'general opinion' the liquor belonged to the respondent; that being so, the fact could not have been verified by the petitioner by filing the affidavit in Form 25," the judge added.
While noting that the allegation is not that the liquor was actually distributed, but was meant to be distributed, the Court said that, "an election petition cannot be entertained on such vague averments lacking in almost all the material particulars."
The Court further found that he election petition does not disclose complete cause of action by the petitioner, and cannot be entertained as such for want of complying with the mandatory requirements under Section 83 of the RPA.
According to Section 83 of the RPA, an election petition shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies and shall set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice that the petitioner alleges including as full a statement as possible of the names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practice and the date and place of the commission of each such practice.
The provision further mandates that shall where the petitioner alleges any corrupt practice, the petition shall also be accompanied by an affidavit in the prescribed form in support of the allegation of such corrupt practice and the particulars thereof.
The judge opined that the petition lacks in another mandatory requirement also, "as it has not been pleaded anywhere by the petitioner that the result of respondent's election has been materially affected by the alleged non- compliance of provisions of the RPA or the Rules."
In the light of the above, the plea was dismissed.
Mr. Viren Jain, Advocate, Ms. Komaljit Kaur, Advocate and
Mr. Tarranum Madan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Karambir Singh Nalwa, Advocate, Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate and Ms. Ashima Attri, Advocate for the respondent.
Mr. Prateek Gupta, Advocate for Election Commission of India.
Case Title: Kashmir Singh v. Sukhbir Singh Badal