Read Time: 04 minutes
Atishi secured her seat with 52,154 votes, surpassing her closest competitor, Bharatiya Janata Party's (BJP) Ramesh Bidhuri, by a margin of 3,521 votes.
The Delhi High Court, on Wednesday, issued a notice to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Atishi in a petition challenging her electoral victory from the Kalkaji constituency in the Assembly elections. The petition, filed by local voters Kamaljit Singh Duggal and Ayush Rana, accused Atishi of engaging in corrupt practices and sought to nullify her election win.
The bench of Justice Jyoti Singh issued notices to Atishi, the Election Commission of India (ECI), Shailendra Kumar Singh (the returning officer for the constituency), and the Delhi Police.
The petitioners, represented by Advocate Tanoodbhav Sukhdev, alleged that on February 3, a day before the election, close associates of Atishi were apprehended with ₹5 lakh in cash within the constituency. These individuals were purportedly acting under Atishi's directives to buy votes in her favor. The petition argues that this act constitutes bribery, a corrupt practice under Section 123(1)(A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Furthermore, the petition claims that AAP workers, with Atishi's consent, disseminated fake videos containing false statements. These videos allegedly accused certain men of hooliganism under Bidhuri's orders, aiming to tarnish his electoral prospects. Additionally, the petitioners assert that Atishi misused public resources by employing a Public Works Department (PWD) vehicle for her campaign. This vehicle was allegedly seen outside the AAP office in Kalkaji, loaded with party banners and flags. They also contend that Atishi enlisted the assistance of government personnel to bolster her campaign, thereby misusing her official position to gain an unfair advantage.
Another significant allegation is that Atishi failed to disclose a pending criminal case in her election affidavit. This case, filed on January 11 at the Govind Puri police station, was reportedly omitted from her disclosures, which the petitioners argue is a violation of the Representation of the People Act.
For Petitioners: Advocate Tanoodbhav SukhdevCase Title: Kamaljit Singh Duggai v Atishi Mariena[Inputs: Indian Express and Business & Finance News]
Please Login or Register