BJP Leader Maneka Gandhi Approaches Supreme Court Challenging Section 81 Of Representation Of The People Act

Upon hearing senior BJP leader Maneka Gandhi's plea challenging Section 81 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, the Supreme Court today asked Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra (appearing for Gandhi) to do a comparative analysis of the limitation provisions in the context of about 30 special statutes.

The case was listed before a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, which posted it to September 30, to enable Luthra to place on record the comparative chart.

Notably, another petition filed by Gandhi challenging the election of Samajwadi Party MP Ram Bhuwal Nishad from the Sultanpur Lok Sabha constituency was also listed before the bench.

The hearing began with Justice Kant asking Luthra as to how many times the Court shall examine the vires of Section 81. The senior counsel replied that the issue arising in the cases is precisely of limitation, and what has been done as a result of judicial determination (in Hukum Chand's case) requires re-examination. He also urged that it's not a matter of the present petitioner (Gandhi) alone; instead, it's about the electorate's right to know and candidates who conceal true facts.

In response, Justice Kant said that generally (for example in commercial disputes) ground pleaded for condonation of delay is absolutely justified. However, in special statutes, the situation may be different and the Court has rendered judgments interpreting limitation provisions. It was also expressed that the Court has to respect legislative intention, as it's a matter of public policy.

Ultimately, the bench gave Luthra 1 week's time to place a comparative chart on the applicability of limitation provisions to special statutes.

Background

Nishad defeated Gandhi (then sitting MP, Sultanpur) by 43,000+ votes in the recently concluded Lok Sabha Elections 2024. While Nishad got 4,44,330 votes, Gandhi managed to get 4,01,156 votes, leading to her defeat.

Challenging Nishad's election, Gandhi filed an election petition before the Allahabad High Court, with a seven-day delay. She accused Nishad of not accurately disclosing in his nomination form the criminal cases pending against him. It was claimed that while filing Form-26 during the election process, Nishad disclosed only 8 criminal cases, whereas there were actually 12 cases pending against him.

On August 14, the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissed Gandhi's petition, holding that it was filed in contravention of Section 81 read with Section 86 of the RP Act, as well as barred by limitation.

For context, Section 81 of the RP Act provides a 45-day period from the date of election of the returned candidate for filing the election petition. Section 86 requires the High Courts to dismiss election petitions that do not comply with Sections 81, 82, and 117.

Gandhi beseeched the High Court to condone the delay as she was hospitalized and delay was only of 1 week. However, her petition was dismissed. Challenging Section 81 of the RP Act, as well as the decision of the High Court, she has now approached the Supreme Court.

The petitions have been filed through Advocate-on-Record Supriya Juneja.

Case Title:

(1) MANEKA SANJAY GANDHI v. RAMBHUAL NISHAD, C.A. No. 10644/ 2024

(2) MANEKA SANJAY GANDHI v. UNION OF INDIA, WP(C) No. 588/2024