Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 446
High Court of Delhi
G. ROHINI & RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, JJ.
Hans Raj Jain – Appellant
Vs.
Election Commission of India – Respondent
W.P.(C) No. 1458 of 2014
Decided On : 19-03-2015
For the Petitioner:Petitioner in person.
For the Respondent:P.R. Chopra, Y.R. Sharma, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between obtaining registration by fraud or forgery and registration based on deficient documents. The judgment also clarifies the limitations on the Election Commission of India's power to deregister a political party and emphasizes the specific grounds for deregistration.
Headnote:
Forgery - Registration of Political Party - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 - Section 29A, Section 3, Section 4 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950. It highlighted the legal framework for registration of political parties, the prohibition on the use of emblems, and the requirements for registration. The court emphasized the distinction between obtaining registration by fraud or forgery and registration based on deficient documents, and the limitations on the Election Commission of India's power to deregister a political party.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought the cancellation of Aam Aadmi Party's (AAP) registration, alleging that it was based on forged, wrong, and incomplete documents. The petitioner also requested the setting up of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to inquire into the documents and initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the officials of the Election Commission of India (ECI).
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's case did not establish fraud or forgery in obtaining registration, but rather focused on the ECI's alleged erroneous registration of AAP. The court held that the grounds for deregistration did not fall within the scope of the ECI's power to deregister a political party. The court dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioner was not entitled to the reliefs claimed.
Issues: The issues revolved around the registration of AAP as a political party, the alleged deficiencies in the documents submitted, and the ECI's decision-making process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the distinction between obtaining registration by fraud or forgery and registration based on deficient documents. It highlighted the limitations on the ECI's power to deregister a political party and the specific grounds for deregistration. The court also discussed the legal framework for registration of political parties and the requirements under Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioner was not entitled to the reliefs claimed, and found the petition to be thoroughly misconceived.
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), impleading the Election Commission of India (ECI) only as the respondent, seeks the reliefs of, i) a direction for cancellation of registration of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) on the ground of the same having been effected on forged, wrong and incomplete documents; ii) setting up of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to inquire into the forged and fabricated documents filed by AAP for registration with the respondent ECI, and, iii) a direction for initiation of a disciplinary proceedings against the officials of respondent ECI.
2. Though notice of the petition was not issued but on 21st March, 2014, the counsel for respondent ECI stated that he shall file a short affidavit indicating the factual position behind the registration of AAP. Such an affidavit has been filed. The petitioner appearing in person and the counsel for the respondent ECI were heard and judgment reserved.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that:
(a) AAP, on 3rd December, 2012 applied along with supporting documents under Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RP Act) for registration as a political party;
(b) On 2nd January, 2013 some further documents were filed in support of the application;
(c) The respondent ECI on 22nd March, 2013 registered AAP as a political party and on the same day delivered the Registration Certificate to a person whose name was not available in the list of 300 persons filed by APP as its members;
(d) The petitioner on 5th December, 2013 approached the respondent ECI under Section 146 of the RP Act for holding an inquiry on registration of APP as a political party on false documents and without proper scrutiny and for cancellation of registration of AAP on the grounds that:
(i) The application submitted by AAP on 3rd December, 2012 for registration was on letterhead showing logo of “Dharma Chakra” of the National Flag and which usage is contrary to the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 (Emblems Act) and Section 123(3) of the RP Act.
(ii) According to the documents submitted, the party i.e. AAP was formed on 24th November, 2012 and the elections of the Executive Committee were held arbitrarily, without adopting democratic procedure.
(iii) No inquiry was held on the affidavits of 300 members – the respondent ECI was bound to scrutinize at least 100 members.
(iv) A scrutiny of affidavit filed of Arvind Kejriwal, National President of AAP showed that two identity cards have been issued to him at two different addresses of Kaushambi and his Income Tax Returns were at the address of Sunder Nagri, Seemapuri, Delhi – the respondent ECI should have held an inquiry and confirmed the name of Arvind Kejriwal only from his High School Certificate – according to Section 18 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, no one can use more than one identity card.
(v) Similarly, there was a difference in address of Pankaj Gupta, National Secretary also, with his residential address disclosed as AG-132, Nirwana Country, Gurgaon and his Income Tax Returns showing the address of Faridabad, Haryana.
(vi) There was similar inconsistency in the addresses of Krishan Kant, National Treasurer, on different documents.
(vii) Such inconsistency in the documents of the office bearers of the party casts doubt on the address and signatures on affidavits of remaining 297 members also.
(viii) No verification of the No Objection Certificates (NOC) submitted for the office of the party was also carried out; the signatures of the landlord on the said certificate were also not verified.
(ix) Though in the application for registration submitted on 3rd December, 2012, office of the party was shown at the address of Kaushambi, Ghaziabad but subsequently the address was changed to Delhi, in violation of Section 8 of the Public Records Act, 1993.
(x) The list of 300 members was without parentage,
