The Allahabad High Court while dismissing an election petition said that a political person is more conscious of his public image which is not an incorrect approach since a socially and politically active person who engaged with people of his area always wants to carry a good public image and good fan following. A political person is normally image conscious since it always carries with him.
A Single Bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery passed this order while hearing an Election Petition filed by Rajender Kumar.
The issue raised before the Court is, whether due to efflux of time the election petition, which is arising out of a dispute of General Election-2014, when not only tenure of that Lok Sabha was already over in 2019 but tenure of present Lok Sabha is about to be over in 2024, i.e within few months, has become infructuous or if survives, it would only for an academic purpose?
The Election Petitioner-Rajender Kumar, an active member of a National Political Party (Bharatiya Janta Party) for last few decades, was set up as a candidate from 04-Bijnor Parliamentary Constituency of District Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh for Parliamentary Election of 2014.
He accordingly submitted his Nomination Form alongwith party symbol accompanied by Form A and Form B in accordance with provisions of Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968.
The Court noted that,
It appears that Returned Candidate was later on set up as a candidate for above referred Parliamentary Constituency and he also submitted Nomination Form alongwith all requisite documents.
The Election-Petitioner filed objections to the Nomination Form submitted by the Returned Candidate being set up by the same National Political Party. However, the Returning Officer vide order dated 24th March, 2014 rejected objections of Election-Petitioner and Nomination Form of Returned Candidate was accepted.
Rest is history, since Respondent-Kunwar Bhartendra Singh, was declared a Returned Candidate by defeating his nearest rival by more than 2.5 lacs votes and he in capacity of Member of Parliament from 04-Bijnor Parliamentary Constituency, has participated in proceedings of Parliament as well as undertaken other responsibilities as and when entrusted upon him.
Tenure of 16th Lok Sabha came to an end in 2019 and thereafter fresh election was conducted and respondent has again participated as a candidate of said National Political Party, however, this time he lost. It is also not in dispute that the tenure of the current Lok Sabha (17th Lok Sabha) is likely to conclude within a few months.
During arguments the Court has interacted with Election-Petitioner and Returned Candidate and found that there are no personal grudges between them, rather they have supported each other during their political career. The Election-Petitioner or his family members were also supported as and when they were set up for any other election by the same National Political Party and they are still good political friends.
The Election-Petitioner is mainly aggrieved that his Nomination Form submitted being a duly set up candidate by said National Political Party was erroneously rejected by the Returning Officer as well as there was no reason for National Political Party to set up respondent/Returned Candidate as it’s candidate when he was already set up as candidate and this act has dented his public image, not only in his political constituency but otherwise also.
In the election petition the relief sought by Election-Petitioner was to declare the result of Returned Candidate to be null and void and set aside the order dated 24.03.2014 whereby objections filed by petitioner were rejected and Nomination Form of Returned Candidate was accepted. No consequential relief was sought, i.e, for fresh election.
The Court further noted that,
Aforesaid reasons given by Returning Officer were only based on subsequent Form B submitted by Returned Candidate. Similarly the objections filed on behalf of Election-Petitioner which was rejected by Returning Officer on the same day, i.e, 24.03.2014 though referred that Returning Officer is barred from accepting any other form of communication regarding rescinding of notice as valid, except from notice in Form B submitted by prescribed time and for that he has placed reliance on Compendium of Instructions and as such affidavit sworn by authorised person of the party in favour of revised candidate has limited legal standing from the point of nominations.
Returning Officer further held that it cannot be denied that still it holds evidentiary value to support the contents of revised Form B submitted by Returned Candidate, i.e, the respondent herein, on the day of nomination, particularly in the face of doubts being expressed by the objectors on the genuineness of the revised Form B. Returning Officer further held that he cannot ignore the evidentiary value of the said affidavit, in summary inquiry, particularly, to prima facie prove the genuineness of revised Form B submitted by Returned Candidate and thus he accepted the Nomination Form of revised candidate.
The above referred reasoning does not contain any element of fraud or forgery in submitting Nomination Form by the Election-Petitioner being set up as a candidate by said National Political Party. The Returning Officer has given more evidentiary value to the affidavit as well as revised Form B submitted by the Returned Candidate that his form was also genuine.
Counsel for Election-Petitioner has argued that legal consequences would fall if this election petition is allowed but in my considered opinion this argument has no legal basis and for that I have carefully perused Section 125A of Representation of People Act, 1951 which prescribes penalty for filing false affidavits.
The Court observed that,
“In this regard a brief reference of the election petition would be relevant to the extent that the contents thereof do not effectively alleged that it was a case of false affidavit rather a case was set up that to issue a subsequent Form B was beyond power, therefore, according to my considered view no legal consequence would fall on Returned Candidate under Section 125A of Act, 1951 if this election petition is allowed.
I have also carefully perused Article 104 of the Constitution, which provides a penalty for sitting and voting before making oath or affirmation under Article 99 or when not qualified or when disqualified. However, according to my considered opinion the facts of the case do not fall under the said provision since Returned Candidate has subscribed an oath or affirmation to set up or set out under third schedule after duly elected in election and there was no allegation that election was not conducted properly. The only dispute was whether the Nomination Form of Election Petitioner was rejected wrongly or not and the Nomination Form of Returned Candidate was rightly accepted or not as evident from issues framed in this election petition on 13.04.2022. Subsequent proceedings or process of election have not been disputed. Therefore, no legal consequence would fall on the ground even if this election petition is allowed.
It appears that Election-Petitioner is carrying an impression that since his Nomination Form was rejected by Returning Officer, it amounts to be a dent on his public image that he has undertaken something illegal or there was something fishy in his Nomination Form. However, as referred above, from the bare perusal of order passed by the Returning Officer, the impression does not appear to be true. Therefore, the impression of Election-Petitioner is baseless which is also supported and evident by subsequent events, when both parties have admitted that said National Political Party has still confidence in Election Petitioner and his family members and party has set up his family members in other elections as its candidate.
The Court said that it is an old saying that in a political life, there are no permanent enemies or friends. Both Election-Petitioner and Returned Candidate have declared themselves to be dedicated workers of the said National Political Party and it also appears that this election petition was filed only to clear a cloud of doubt which might have been created by rejection of Nomination Form of Election-Petitioner. As referred above, this was only a misconception of the Election-Petitioner.
With aforesaid observations, the Court dismissed the election petition.