Barred By Limitation? : Allahabad HC Reserves Order On Maintainability Of Maneka Gandhi's Plea Against Sultanpur MP's Election

The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) on Monday reserved its order on the maintainability of the plea moved by Senior BJP leader, former MP and Cabinet Minister Maneka Gandhi challenging the election of Samajwadi Party MP Ram Bhuwal Nishad from the Sultanpur Lok Sabha constituency.

A bench of Justice Rajan Roy reserved orders after hearing Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra (appearing for Maneka Gandhi) on the point of limitation as prescribed in Section 81 of the Representation of People Act 1951. Gandhi moved the election petition with a seven-day delay.

"The matter has been heard on the point of limitation as prescribed in Section 81 of the Act 1950 as also maintainability of this election petition in view of the said time limit prescribed therein read with Section 86 of the Act 1951 and Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure," the Court's order reads.

Here, it may be noted that Section 81 of the 1951 Act provides a 45-day period from the date of election of the returned candidate, and if the dates for elections are different, then the later date for filing the election petition.

Further, Section 86 of the 1951 Act requires the High Courts to dismiss election petitions that do not comply with Sections 81, 82, and 117.

Updates about the hearing 

On Monday, the matter came up for hearing before Justice Roy, who informed Senior Advocate Luthra that the Office had reported an objection that the Election Petition was beyond the time limit prescribed in Section 81 of the Representation of People Act, 1951. 

To this, Senior Advocate Luthra submitted that the issue of criminality in elections has to be addressed. He also contended that it is the fundamental right of the voter to know about a candidate's criminal history, and when such a right has been violated, the Court should take into account this factor while deciding on the question of Limitation.

On the question of limitation, Senior Advocate Luthra referred to paragraphs 10 and 11 of the Top Court's Judgment in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs M. Krishnamurthy 1998, wherein the Apex Court had observed that the "Rule of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. the object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury."

Senior Advocate Luthra also submitted that Gandhi's election petition was filed with a delay of only one week, as Gandhi was hospitalized. He argued that the delay in approaching the Court should be condoned.

Against this backdrop, the Court reserved its order on the maintainability of Gandhi's petition.

About the Election petition

Nishad defeated Gandhi (then sitting MP, Sultanpur) by 43K+ 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.

In her plea, Gandhi accused Nishad of not disclosing the pending criminal cases (in his nomination form) against him. Gandhi claims that Nishad while filing Form-26 during the election process for the Sultanpur-38 Lok Sabha seat in the 2024 elections, disclosed only 8 criminal cases, whereas there are actually 12 cases pending against him.

The petition highlights that the non-disclosure or deliberate omission of criminal cases constitutes corrupt practice under Section 100 of the Representation of People Act (RPA), 1951. Gandhi has argued that Nishad's election should be declared void based on this allegation alone.

"...the returned candidate (Nishad) deliberately did not submit his full detailed criminal antecedents. The returned candidate has a known criminal antecedents of 12 cases whereas in the affidavit filed he has only mentioned 8 (eight) criminal cases and deliberately omitted 4 (four) criminal cases. The returned candidate has played a fraud on the public and is involved in corrupt practices and thus his election is thereby liable to be disqualified under Section 100 of Representation of People Act-1951", her election petition submits.

Against this backdrop, Gandhi has contended that the result of the election, so far as it relates to Nishad, has been materially affected by the non-compliance of the provisions of the Constitution of C India, the Representation of People Act-1951 and the conduct of Election Rules-1961, as well as the orders issued under R.P. Act 1951 and the Election Commission of India time to time.

Case title - Maneka Sanjay Gandhi Vs. Rambhual Nishad And Others