AVANI BANSAL V. THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA

WP(C)/16410/2024

AI Insights

The case involves a writ petition filed by Avani Bansal and Renjith Thomas against the Election Commission of India and other respondents, challenging the nomination of Rajeev Chandrasekhar for the Thiruvananthapuram Lok Sabha constituency. The petitioners alleged that the nomination and accompanying affidavit violated the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. Complaints were filed with the Returning Officer, which were not decided in a timely manner, prompting the writ petition. The court found that the nomination had already been scrutinized and accepted, and thus, no further action on the complaints would be meaningful at this stage.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 725889 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 23-04-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Representation of the People Act, 1951, Conduct of Election Rules, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: DEEPU MOHAN; GEORGE POONTHOTTAM
• Assessee Lawyers: NISHA GEORGE; A L KRISHNAN; REGINALD VALSALAN; NAMITA PHILSON; ANSHIN; SIDHARTH WARIYAR
• Keywords: Affidavit; Complaints; Election; Nomination; Reasoned order
• Section: 36(5)

Judgement Text

"WP(C) NO. 16410 OF 2024 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 3RD VAISAKHA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 16410 OF 2024 PETITIONER/S: 1 AVANI BANSAL AGED 36 YEARS D/O ASHOK BANSAL, OPPO. MAHATMA GANDHI HIGH SCHOOL, STADIUM ROAD, HARDA, MADHYA PRADESH., PIN - 461331 2 RENJITH THOMAS AGED 41 YEARS S/O THOMAS E.D, FLAT NO.-2105, OAKWOOD APARTMENTS, 1ST CROSS, 8TH MAIN, KORAMANGALA 3RD BLOCK, BENGALURU, PIN - 560034 BY ADVS. NISHA GEORGE A.L.NAVANEETH KRISHNAN REGINALD VALSALAN NAMITA PHILSON ANSHIN K.K SIDHARTH.R.WARIYAR RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NIRVACHAN SADAN, ASHOKA ROAD, NEW DELHI REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 110001 2 THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER, KERALA, ELECTION DEPARTMENT, KERALA LEGISLATIVE COMPLEX, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033 3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR/ELECTION OFFICER DISTRICT COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANANKKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695043 4 RAJEEV CHANDRASEKHAR AGED 59 YEARS S/O M.K CHANDRASEKHAR, NO.408, 2ND A-CROSS 3RD BLOCK, WP(C) NO. 16410 OF 2024 2 KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU, PIN - 560034 BY ADV DEEPU LAL MOHAN SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 16410 OF 2024 3 JUDGMENT Dated this the 23rd day of April 2024 V.G.ARUN,J. This writ petition is filed seeking to direct the 3rd respondent to pass a reasoned order on Exts.P2 and P3 complaints filed by the petitioners. The essential facts, as narrated in the writ petition, are as follows; The 4th respondent is contesting in the ensuing election to the Thiruvanantharam Lok Sabha constituency. According to the petitioners, the nomination submitted by the 4th respondent on 04/04/2024 and the accompanying affidavit filed by him are in violation of the relevant provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. Therefore, the petitioners filed Exts.P2 and P3 complaints before the Returning Officer/3rd respondent on 05/04/2024, requesting to reject the nomination. In the complaints it was also alleged that the 4th respondent had filed a false affidavit. This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the delay on the part of the 3rd respondent in taking a decision on Exts.P2 and P3 complaints. 2. We heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, the first petitioner, who appeared through virtual mode, and the learned Standing Counsel for the Election WP(C) NO. 16410 OF 2024 4 Commission. 3. When the writ petition was taken up for consideration it was submitted by the Senior Counsel that, by about 4.45 p.m. on 22/04/2024, a communication dated 15.04.2024 issued by the District Election Officer was served on the first petitioner informing about the Returning Officer's report that the scrutiny of the 4th respondent's nomination was completed on 05.04.2024 and the FORM 7A was finalised after 08.04.2024. It is also stated in the communication that, based on the Returning Officer's request to get the complaints filed by the petitioners enquired through the competent authority, the District Election Officer had forwarded the complaints to the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation) as per letter No. E1-818088/2024 dated 09/09/2024. 4. On behalf of the petitioners, it is contended that the deliberate omission on the part of the Returning Officer in taking a decision on Exts.P2 and P3 complaints, violates the mandate of Section 36(5) of the Representation of the People Act,1951. Hence, the Returning Officer should be directed to pass a reasoned order on the complaints within two days and communicate the same to the petitioners. 5. Learned Standing Counsel for the Election Commission submitted that, in so far as the allegation is regarding the filing of false affidavit by one of the candidates, the proper remedy is to file an election petition. It is pointed out that even the improper WP(C) NO. 16410 OF 2024 5 acceptance of nomination of the returned candidate is a ground for declaring the election to be void. 6. Having heard the matter at length, we are of the opinion that the 4threspondent's nomination having been accepted, no purpose will be served by directing the 3rd respondent to pass a reasoned order on Exts.P2 and P3 complaints. As contended by the Standing Counsel, even with respect to an allegation regarding improper acceptance of nomination, the aggrieved person has the remedy of filing an election petition. The writ petition is hence dismissed with the above observation. sd V.G.ARUN, JUDGE sd/ S.MANU, JUDGE jm/ WP(C) NO. 16410 OF 2024 6 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16410/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit-P1 A TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT DATED 22.03.2024 FILED BY THE OFFICIAL BJP CANDIDATE FOR THE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM LOK SABHA CONSTITUENCY IN THE STATE OF KERALA ON 4TH APRIL, 2024 BEFORE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINTS DATED 05.04.2024 FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE COVER-EMAILS SHOWING TIME STAMP Exhibit-P2a TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 05.04.2024 SENT BY THE 1ST PETITIONER COMMUNICATING EXT-P2 COMPLAINT Exhibit-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 05.04.2024 FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER Exhibit-P3a TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 05.04.2024 SENT BY THE 1ST PETITIONER COMMUNICATING EXT-P2 COMPLAINT Exhibit-P4 A TRUE COPY OF FOLLOW-UP EMAIL BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 12.04.2024 TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR PASSING A REASON ORDER ON THE COMPLAINT DATED 05.04.2024 Exhibit-P5 A TRUE COPY OF FOLLOW-UP EMAIL BY THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 12.04.2024 TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR PASSING A REASON ORDER ON THE COMPLAINT DATED 05.04.2024 Exhibit-P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. 3/ER/2023/SDR/VOL.IV DATED 06.03.2024 ISSUED BY THE ELECTION COMMISSION Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. E1-818088/2024 DATED 15.04.2024 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL COMMUNICATION DATED 22.04.2024 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER "