Presidential Election : Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Rejection Of Candidate's Nomination
The Supreme Court, on Wednesday, refused to entertain the plea of Dr Mandati Thirupathi Reddy who had sought to file nomination for the ensuing election of President of India, but the same was rejected by the returning officer of Secretary General, Lok Sabha, Parliament House. "No case to interfere by this court is made out. Dismissed."A vacation Bench comprising Justices Surya Kant...
The Supreme Court, on Wednesday, refused to entertain the plea of Dr Mandati Thirupathi Reddy who had sought to file nomination for the ensuing election of President of India, but the same was rejected by the returning officer of Secretary General, Lok Sabha, Parliament House.
"No case to interfere by this court is made out. Dismissed."
A vacation Bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and J.B. Pardiwala noted that the petitioner's nomination paper did not comply with the requirements envisaged under Section 5B(1)(a) of the Presidential and Vice Presidential Election Act, 1952.
"It is undeniable that the nomination paper sought to be submitted by the petitioner is not in conformity with S5B(1)(a) of the 1952 Act."
Section 5B(1)(a) reads as under -
"5B. Presentation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination.—(1) On or before the date appointed under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 4, each candidate shall, either in person or by any of his proposers or seconders, between the hours of eleven o‟clock in the forenoon and three o‟clock in the afternoon, deliver to the returning officer at the place specified in this behalf in the public notice issued under section 5 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and subscribed by the candidate as assenting to the nomination, and
(a) in the case of Presidential election, also by at least fifty electors as proposers and at least fifty electors as seconders;"
Reading out his educational and professional qualifications from his petition and his eligibility for filing nomination, the petitioner appearing as party-in-person submitted that he has in-depth understanding of the Constitution, which is essential for holding the prestigious post of the President of India. He apprised the Bench that he is an Advocate in service, has three international honorary doctorates and secured 72 marks in his LLM paper on Constitutional Law: New Challenges. He also submitted that candidates well-versed in the law of the land should be given importance rather than those politically strong.
Observing that the rejection of the nomination did not suffer from any infirmity, the Bench refused to interfere with the decision of the returning officer.
"In this view of the matter, the rejection of the nomination form of the petition does not suffer any infirmity."
[Case Title: Dr Mandati Thirupathi Reddy v. Secretary General P.C. Mody And Ors. Diary No. 19345 of 2022]