Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Allahabad High Court on September 24, 2024 issued notice to R.K. Chaudhary, a member of the Samajwadi Party (SP) and the winning candidate from Lucknow's Mohanlalganj constituency in the recent Lok Sabha elections. The notice was issued in an election petition challenging the legitimacy of Chaudhary’s victory.

The bench of Justice Jaspreet Singh scheduled the next hearing for November 19, 2024 while directing the petitioner namely Gyani, a voter from Mohanlalganj, to serve the notice to Chaudhary within two weeks. Court ordered the service to be executed through Registered Post, Ordinary Process, and publication in accordance with Rule 6 of Chapter 15-A of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.

The election petition, filed through Advocates Hari Shankar Jain and Shailendra Srivastava, questioned the legality of Chaudhary’s win, alleging that corrupt practices were adopted to secure his victory. 

The petition asserted that Chaudhary’s campaign appealed to voters along caste and religious lines, under the banner of "Pichada, Dalit, and Alpasankhyak" (PDA), which targeted Dalits, backward classes, and Muslim voters in favor of the Samajwadi Party.

The PDA strategy, according to SP chief Akhilesh Yadav, played a crucial role in the party’s electoral success, particularly in Uttar Pradesh, where they secured 37 out of 80 seats.

The petitioner further contended that the term PDA was deliberately coined to polarize voters based on caste and religion. It has also been alleged that Chaudhary and his supporters inflamed religious sentiments among Muslim voters by claiming they had been deprived of their rightful share.

The petition argued that Chaudhary's actions violated Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which prohibits appeals for votes based on religion, race, caste, community, or language.

The plea asserted that such conduct constitutes a corrupt practice, sufficient grounds to invalidate the election, irrespective of whether the appeal pertains to the candidate’s or voters’ religion.

"An appeal to vote in the name of religion, race, caste, community or language is impermissible under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and would constitute a corrupt practice sufficient to annul the election in which such an appeal to vote was made regardless whether the appeal was in the name of the candidate's religion or the religion of the election agent or that of the opponent or that of the voters," the plea stated. 

Moreover, the plea claimed that Chaudhary, in his nomination and declaration papers, did not mention an FIR filed in 2019 under Section 188, CrPC. 

"That the non-disclosure of even a single case comes within the ambit of exercising undue influence on voters to vote in favour of the candidate in the meaning of Section 123(2) of RP Act. Such non- disclosure prevents the voter from taking a correct decision in making choice between the candidates and affects his free exercise of electoral right," the plea stated. 

The plea sought a direction to set aside Chaudhary's election and a declaration that it was void. 

Case Title: Gyani vs. Shri R.K. Choudhary