Supreme Court Disposes Satyendra Jain's Plea Against VIPS Chairman Over Cross-Examination Of Witness In Election Petition

The Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan noted that Jain wanted to cross-examine the witness in order to establish the issuance of show cause notices (on the basis of which the complaints were filed). However, taking into account the submission made by the respondent's counsel that the issuance of these show cause notices has already been acknowledged, the Court said that the petitioner's grievance has effectively been addressed.

To provide a brief background, Vats filed an election petition in 2020 challenging Satyendra Jain's election as MLA from Shakur Basti, Delhi. The controversy arose when an Assistant Electoral Registration Officer was summoned in the case for proving and producing certain documents. Jain sought to cross-examine that person allegedly beyond the summon record.

However, the cross-examining was not permitted which led to a chamber appeal. The Single Bench turned down the same. It observed that Vats had summoned the officer under Part B, Rule 3 of Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1967 i.e., a witness required to produce documents only and not to give any oral evidence.

Today, Senior Counsel, on behalf of the Election petitioner, submitted that Jain (returned candidate) wanted to cross-examine the aforesaid witness in order to establish two things. One, show cause notice related to the complaint on Feb 1; Second, show cause notice related to the complaint on Feb 3, 202 were issued to the return candidate.

He submitted that the Election petitioner has already acknowledged that these show-cause notices were already issued. In view of that admission, there is no necessity to summon the witness to prove the issuance of the show cause notice.

On the other hand, Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, for Jain, submitted that the witness was required to be summoned to establish that the replies to these notices were also submitted by the petitioner. Thereafter, no further action was taken.

The Court noted that the grievance of the petitioner has been effectively addressed. However, at the same time, the Court said:

“If…..it is found that there is a lack of clarity with regard to the production of the averments and reply....to the show cause notices…the High Court shall grant one opportunity to the petitioner to (prove) those replies subject to the objection of the Election Petitioner.”

“If an additional opportunity is accorded...we request the HC to grant such an opportunity before August 31, 2024. Thereafter, the HC shall make an endeavour to decide the EP at the earliest.”

It may also been mentioned that the High Court had held that "merely because the petitioner in his list of witnesses had described the said official as a witness to produce and prove documents, he cannot be termed as a witness". It was further noted that the documents in relation to which the officer was sought to be cross-examined by Satyendra Jain were sought to be produced and proved by another witness cited by him, and as such, no prejudice would be caused.

Aggrieved by this order, Satyendra Jain moved to the top Court. On May 13, Justice Sanjiv Khanna recused from hearing the case, citing as the reason hat his son studied in VIPS (Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies) of which Vats is the Chairman.

Case Title: SATYENDRA JAIN Versus S.C. VATS AND ORS., Diary No. 52890-2023