Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, on Monday, in the election petition filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Somnath Bharti against the elections of Bansuri Swaraj, reaffirmed the duty of counsel is to appear in court and not rely on proxy representation. The court criticized the growing practice of sending proxy counsel for procedural matters and emphasized the need for direct accountability.

Such observations were made by the court after Somnath Bharti asserted that written submissions were not served by the other party. Upon scrutiny, Bharti informed the court that in the previous hearing, he had been occupied with election-related engagements and that his counsel had appeared merely as a proxy, lacking the authority to make any substantive submissions.

Justice Dayal expressed his disapproval, stating that the court would not entertain such submissions regarding the non-receipt of documents. He emphasized that the court was not a post-office and could not allow judicial time to be wasted. The judge further remarked that the court aimed to bring about a change in legal practices, not only in the present case but across all similar matters.

"This is not a post office. Make sure all documents are sent to the other party. It is not just in your matters but in many matters. Judicial time is being wasted. Advocates are coming in and saying notices were not issues- we are becoming a post office", the court orally remarked. 

Advocate Rajeev Sharma, representing Swaraj, countered Bharti’s claim by asserting that the written statement had been filed within the stipulated time and duly served to Bharti. In response, Bharti stated his intention to file a replication once he received the written statement. However, counsel for Swaraj contended that the time to file a replication had already expired, as the prescribed thirty-day period had lapsed. He pointed out that Bharti had raised the issue after three months, thereby forfeiting his right to file a replication.

Further, counsel for Swaraj highlighted that a court order issued in December 2024 indicated that Bharti’s legal representative had already sought additional time to file the replication. This, he argued, confirmed that the written statement had indeed been served. Bharti, however, maintained that he had been occupied with election-related engagements and that his counsel had appeared merely as a proxy, lacking the authority to make any substantive submissions.

The court firmly stated that it would not record Bharti’s submission that the written statement had not been received. Additionally, the court disapproved of the practice of sending proxy counsel to seek adjournments, emphasizing that legal representatives must take direct responsibility for proceedings rather than relying on proxies.

When Bharti persisted in his objections, the court warned that further objections could result in the imposition of costs. Bharti claimed that he had no knowledge regarding the filing of the written statement and asserted that there was no affidavit of service. Advocate Sharma, in response, pointed out that Bharti could have inspected the court files to verify the matter.

The court, having noted that the written statement had been duly served and an email attaching the statement had been sent to Bharti’s office, rejected his request to file a replication. Ultimately, the court dismissed Bharti’s prayer and listed the case before the Joint Registrar for further proceedings on April 17, 2025.

Background: 

Somnath Bharti filed an election petition challenging the results of the New Delhi Parliamentary Constituency election held on May 25, 2024. Bansuri Swaraj won the most votes and was declared elected on June 4, 2024. Bharti, who contested on the Aam Aadmi Party ticket, lost to Swaraj. He alleged that Raaj Kumar Anand, the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) candidate, was strategically placed to split the votes.

Per the order dated September 9, 2024, the court had rejected the oral prayer by AAP Leader Somnath Bharti seeking burnt memory or microcontroller of 1489 electronic voting machines (EVMs) deployed in the New Delhi Parliamentary Constituency during the election for the Member of the House of the People. The court noted that the request of the petitioner “for seeking burnt memory of the 1489 EVMs is whimsical and untenable both in law and in facts”.

Case Title: Somnath Bharti v Bansuri Swaraj And Others