Challenge To Presidential Election Can Be Heard Exclusively By Supreme Court: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has recently observed that a petition challenging Presidential election can only be decided by the Supreme Court.

Justice Sanjeev Narula observed that the only remedy in relation to a Presidential election can be by way of an election petition after declaration of the result. Further, Section 14(2) of the Presidential and Vice Presidential Elections Act, 1952 confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Supreme Court to hear such matters.

The observation was made while dismissing a petition filed on the eve of Presidential Election 2022, seeking deletion of names of the Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) who are languishing in jail due to some pending cases or those decided against them so that they do not participate in the voting process.

The plea was filed by one Satvir Singh, a 70 years old self employed carpenter, who had furnished a Nomination Form for conducting elections for the post of President. The same was however rejected by the Election Commission of India.

The plea stated that the ECI as well as the Union of India were not taking any effective steps to remove or disqualify such persons (Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assemblies) from the Electoral College to elect various dignitaries i.e. President of India, Vice President of India etc.

Dismissing the plea as not maintainable, the Court was of the view that the petitioner had neither given a single instance where an imprisoned or incarcerated member was allowed to vote or act as a member of Parliament or State Legislature, nor had he arrayed such a member as a party.

"Further, on a perusal of the 1952 Act, the Court is unable to discern any provision disqualifying members of Parliament and State Legislatures – who are imprisoned/ incarcerated from voting in the said elections. Mr. Kumar has relied upon Section 8 of R.P. Act, which prescribes for disqualification of persons from being a member of Parliament and State Legislatures; however, in light of the fact that the present petition cannot be entertained by this Court, the Court refrains from expressing any opinion on this issue," the Court said.

The Court also called the petition as "extremely brief" with just one page averments. It said that not much research was put in by the petitioner before approaching the Court.

"As already observed above, Petitioner has not put in much effort to understand the legal provisions before initiating the present petition. However, the aforenoted relief sought is ex-facie liable to be dismissed for several grounds. The timing of the petition on the eve of Presidential Election, and not before, makes the intention of the petition 'highly suspect'," the Court added.

Accordingly, the plea was dismissed.

Case Title: SATVIR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 693

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 668