The Kerala High Court on Tuesday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against Union minister Rajeev Chandrasekhar, alleging that he submitted a false nomination affidavit for the upcoming Lok Sabha elections as the BJP candidate from the Thiruvananthapuram constituency.
A division bench of justices VG Arun and S Manu upheld the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) argument that challenging a candidate’s affidavit should be done through an election petition rather than a PIL once the nomination is accepted by the returning officer.
Also Read:A 1991 moment: The Congress manifesto will unleash growth
“As rightly contended by counsel for Election Commission of India, the remedy of the petitioner, if aggrieved by the acceptance of the affidavit filed by one of the candidates is to challenge the same in an election petition,” the Court observed, Bar and Bench reported.
In response to the petitioner’s request for clarification on the action taken regarding their complaint, the Court stated that determining whether the returning officer should have provided a reasoned order couldn’t be decided at that moment, as no statutory provision supported such a requirement. Consequently, the Court rejected the plea, asserting that it couldn’t direct the returning officer to provide reasons for their decision on the complaint at that juncture.
Also Read:Denial of mother’s child care leave violates constitutional entitlement, says SC
“We are of the opinion that the question as to whether the returning officer should have passed a reasoned order cannot be decided at this point of time and no direction can be issued to him to communicate reasons for the decision on the complaint at this point of time,” the Bench ordered.
What was the PIL against Rajeev Chandrasekhar?
In the plea, the petitioner alleged that Chandrasekhar intentionally omitted to declare his assets, including properties, luxury cars, and private jets, and undervalued his shares in various companies in his nomination affidavit for the upcoming elections.
Advocate and Indian National Congress leader Avani Bansal, along with Renjith Thomas, lodged a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) alleging the widespread practice of candidates submitting false affidavits with their nominations for elections.
They asserted their public-spirited stance by filing a complaint against Rajeev Chandrasekhar before the returning officer in Thiruvananthapuram, accompanied by prima facie evidence to support their claims.
“The nomination submitted by the 4th respondent (Chandrasekhar) is in utter and repeated violation of the relevant provision of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1950, the Conduct of Election Rules 1961, and as per the compendium given on the Election Commission of India’s website,” the plea said.
According to their plea, the returning officer, as the statutory authority to investigate complaints against candidates, is obligated to provide a detailed response to such complaints. However, they noted that the returning officer had not issued any order or report on their complaints.
They argued that the failure of the returning officer to provide a reasoned order in response to their complaint deprives them of their right to ascertain whether their allegations have been acknowledged or refuted. They contended that merely stating “admitted” against Chandrasekhar’s name on the Election Commission of India’s website does not suffice as a reasoned order.
The petitioners stressed that this designation falls short of what constitutes a “reasoned order.” Therefore, they sought relief from the High Court to compel the returning officer to issue a reasoned order on Bansal’s complaints within a two-day timeframe, asserting their entitlement to transparency and accountability in the electoral process.