MP High Court Dismisses Plea To Disqualify BJP MLA Jajpal Singh Over 'False' Caste Certificate, Imposes Rs.50K Cost On Election Petitioner

Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently dismissed an election petition filed against BJP MLA Jajpal Singh, alleging falsity of caste certificate and concealment of criminal case pending against him.

Notably, the writ petition was filed by BJP leader Ladduram Kori after he lost a reserved seat in Ashoknagar constituency to Singh in 2018, when Singh was in Congress. In March 2020, Singh moved to BJP and won the bypoll.

The single judge bench of Justice Sunita Yadav, after perusing the records, concluded that the caste certificate submitted by the incumbent MLA in support of his nomination is valid. Singh claimed that he is a member of the ‘NAT’ Scheduled Caste community.

“…the issue of caste of the respondent no.1 has finally been decided up to the Apex Court and as per the caste certificate, he belongs to 'NAT' Caste /Scheduled Caste. It is also crystal clear that in the light of case of Madhuri Patil (supra) the question of genuineness of the caste certificate can not be decided in this election petition. Therefore, on the basis of order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee, it is found to be proved that the respondent No.-1 could be treated as member of Schedule Caste in the state of Madhya Pradesh.”

The order passed by the State-Level High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee is ‘final and conclusive’, subject only to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, Justice Sunita Yadav underscored.

The election petitioner had earlier filed a special leave petition before the apex court challenging the High Court’s Division Bench order that affirmed the findings of the caste scrutiny committee, which validated the ‘NAT’ status of the respondent MLA. This SLP got dismissed on 09.08.2023.

While holding that the acceptance of the nomination by the returning officer on 13.11.2018 was not vitiated by the incorrectness of the caste certificate produced, on another note, the court also declared that the respondent has not violated Sections 33A or 125 A of Representation of People Act, 1951:

“…there is no evidence that at the relevant point of time of filing the nomination paper/form on behalf of the return candidate, any case punishable with imprisonment for two years or more was pending in which a charge has been framed by the court of competent jurisdiction. Even in their evidence, the election petitioner and his witnesses have failed to show that the cognizance in any criminal case has been taken by the competent court against respondent no.-1”, the court held, referring to Krishna Murthy vs. Shiv Kumar & Ors. (2015) 3 SCC 467, that cognizance of the offence must be taken by a competent court and mere registration of FIR alone wouldn’t disqualify a candidate from contesting elections.

In the case at hand, the court pointed out that there is nothing to show that cognizance was taken or even FIR was registered against Jajpal Singh by the Economic Offences Wing under the Prevention of Corruption Act and various provisions of IPC, as initially alleged by Kori.

Finally, the court opined that the current election petition was filed by the petitioner, making certain allegations about the caste of the respondent, only since he lost the 2018 elections. The election petitioner had alleged that respondent no.1 originally belonged to the Sikh community since he migrated to Madhya Pradesh from Punjab before 1950. However, the election petitioner did not raise any objections when the respondent contested the elections in 2013 as well as 2021 as a member of the SC community, the court further added.

“…The conduct of the election petitioner along with the evidence adduced by him indicate that present petition is filed only on account of political rivalry after defeat in election of 2018 against respondent No.-1 and for which he (respondent No.-1) has to suffer enormous amount of mental agony. The evidence of witnesses of election petitioner indicate that the allegations without pleadings and supporting documents were made.”

The petitioner is a ‘busy body’, as observed by a co-ordinate bench of the High Court earlier in another writ petition, and he has failed to establish what fundamental rights of his were violated due to the election of Jajpal Singh, the court noted.

Therefore, under Section 35(A) of CPC, the court imposed Rs 50,000/- as cost on the election petitioner for the mental agony he caused to the respondent.

Case Title: Laddu Ram Kori v. Jajpal Singh Jaji & Ors.

Case No: Election Petition No. 8 of 2019

Click Here To Read/ Download Order