Supreme Court Agrees To Hear BJP Leader Sharad Kumar Awasthi's Challenge To HC Rejecting His Election Petition On 2022 UP Polls

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (January 16) issued notice in a Special Leave Petition filed by Bharatiya Janata Party's(BJP) member Sharad Kumar Awasthi challenging the order of the Allahabad High Court which dismissed Awasthi's election petition in an application under Order 7 Rule 11 moved by Samajwadi Party's (SP) Fareed Mahfooz Kidwai.

The bench comprising the Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra observed that the High Court in its order dated October 4, 2023, had made a manifest error in entering into the merits of the election petition under an application for rejection of plaint filed by SP member Kidwai.

The CJI dictated the order as follows :

“Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the High Court has committed a manifest error of jurisdiction in dismissing the Election Petition on merits at the stage of hearing an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. 2 Issue notice, returnable on 9 February 2024.”

Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC provides the rejection of a plaint in a civil case. 

Background

In 2022, BJP's Awasthi and SP's Kidwai ran for the position of MLA from the Ramnagar Constituency in Uttar Pradesh's State Assembly Elections. As per the official poll results, Mr Kidwai won the seat with 98799 votes, garnering 41.96% of total votes polled, defeating the next contestant Awasthi who managed to obtain 98538 votes (41.85%)

Aggrieved by the results, the petitioner filed an election petition before the High Court.

Order of the High Court in Application for Rejection of Plaint

The Court, in dismissing the election petition filed by the petitioner observed the various provisions of the Representation of People's Act, 1951 read with Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 as well as other supplementary laws like Handbook for Returning Officer, Handbook for Counting Agent which governed the elections in question.

The High Court held that:

“As it is undisputed fact that the polling agents of the candidates were appointed in accordance with the aforesaid provisions but polling agent had not made request for recounting in accordance with law. As after declaration of result, the petitioner moved an application before the District Election Officer, Barabanki with the request that for satisfaction of the citizens of the area in question and his satisfaction, he is interested for recounting of the votes. As there is a provision of inspection of documents after making prescribed fee but the petitioner never made any inspection in relation to the form17(C), in such circumstances, it is evident that the election was conducted in accordance with the statutory provisions as well as rules and the ample opportunity was available to the polling agent of the petitioner at the appropriate stage but they never availed the opportunity but after losing the election, they filed the present petition, therefore, the present application is having force and is accordingly, allowed and the petition is hereby dismissed”

Case Details: SHARAD KUMAR AWASTHI vs. FAREED MAHFOOZ KIDWAI SLP(C) No. 000941 - / 2024