Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench today dismissed the election petition filed by former BJP MP Maneka Gandhi challenging the election of Samajwadi Party's Rambhual Nishad in the recent Sultanpur Lok Sabha elections, 2024 for being barred by Section 81 read with Section 86 of the Representation of People Act, 1951.

The bench of Justice Rajan Roy had reserved the judgment on August 5, 2024.

Court observed that the high court while hearing an election petition does not function as a Constitutional Court per se nor does it have extraordinary constitutional or inherent powers, therefore, the contention of counsel for Mrs Gandhi that the violation of constitutional right and right to information of the voters should have been considered was not acceptable.

Court clarified that the high court while hearing an election petition operates as an Authority under Article 329 (b) of the Constitution of India whose jurisdiction is circumscribed by the statutory provisions contained in the 1951 Act.

"Unless and until the election petition is maintainable and is not barred by limitation, the merits of the matter cannot be considered," held the court. 

Mrs. Gandhi's petition claimed that SP leader Rambhual Nishad did not fully disclose his criminal record in his nomination affidavit, listing only eight cases instead of twelve.

Specifically, the plea alleged that he failed to mention two cases from Pipraich police station and three from Bardhalganj police station in Gorakhpur district.

The petition called for Mr Nishad's election to be declared void and for Mrs Gandhi to be declared the winner. Nishad, a former minister from Gorakhpur, had defeated Gandhi in the Sultanpur constituency in the recent Lok Sabha elections by 43K+ votes.

As per Section 81 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, an election petition challenging election of a candidate can be filed within 45 days from, but not earlier than the date of election of the returned candidate or if there are more than one returned candidate at the election and dates of their election are different, the later of those two dates.

However, it came to light that though Mr Nishad was elected on June 4, 2024, and results of the election were declared on June 6, 2024, the present election petition was filed on July 27, 2024 i.e. beyond the period of 45 days prescribed in Section 81 of the Act of 1951.

Representing Mrs Gandhi, along with Advocates Prashant Singh Atal, Amit Jaiswal, Dr. Pooja Singh and Vijay Vikram Singh, Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra (via video conferencing) had argued that the delay could be excused and the petition could be judged on its merits, citing various legal precedents to support his argument. He had contended that they were not aware of the criminal background of the SP leader, hence the petition was delayed and the delay could have been condoned.

The counsel had argued that Section 33-A of the 1951 Act mandates candidates to disclose any criminal cases against them, granting voters the corresponding right to be informed about the individuals they are voting for. He had emphasized that this right is integral to the constitutional right. Therefore, he had contended that in cases like the present one, limitations should not legitimize such unlawful non-disclosures.

However, court referred to Section 86 of the Act of 1951 which provides that the high court shall dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provision of Section 81 or Section 82 or Section 117 of the Act of 1951.

Court stressed that Section 86 (1) of the Act of 1951 is mandatory and in the event an election petition is filed beyond the period of 45 days prescribed in Section 81 of the Act of 1951 the high court does not have any option but to dismiss the election petition in view of provision contained in Section 86 (1) of the Act of 1951. 

"There is no provision under the Act 1951 which permits condonation of such delay and extension of the limitation proscribed in Section 81 of the Act 1951 on any ground," said the court. 

Further, referring to the top court's several judgment including Hukumdev Narain Yadav vs. Lalit narain Mishra (1974) and Charan Lal Sahu vs. Nand Kishor Bhatt (1973), the high court held that the Limitation Act, 1963, especially Section 5 thereof, is not applicable to election petitions.

"In fact, the applicability appears to be specifically excluded in view of the provision of Section 86 (1) of the Act 1951 which makes it mandatory for the High Court/ Election Judge to dismiss the election petition if it is not in conformity with the provision of Section 81 of the Act 1951," the single judge bench held. 

Case Title: Maneka Sanjay Gandhi v. Rambhual Nishad And Others