Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Vibhu Bakhru, J.
Rohitash - Appellant
Versus
Chief Electoral Officer of Delhi - Respondent
EL. PET. 1 of 2021 and IA Nos. 535 of 2021, 536 of 2021, 2819 of 2021, 6189 of 2021 & 15271 of 2021
Decided On : 07-07-2022
False declarations in election affidavits do not invalidate elections unless proven substantial, and verification requirements for petitions are strictly enforced.
Headnote:(A) Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Sections 100(d)(i), 100(d)(iv), and 125A - Election petition challenging the election of respondent as MLA on the ground of false declaration regarding Government dues - Petitioner alleges falsehood in affidavit concerning dues for occupied Government accommodation. (Paras 3, 4 and 5)
(B) Election Law - Verification requirements - Petitioner's failure to verify petition as required under Section 83(1)(c) renders it liable for rejection - Lack of objection raised at nomination stage. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the election of a candidate claiming that he falsely declared no dues were owed for government accommodation. The disputed amount was Rs.2,77,650/- for office space occupied by the candidate. (Paras 5, 10.1-10.13)
Findings of Court:
The court found no evidence that the candidate owed any dues as claimed, and thus, concluded the declaration was not false. (Paras 16)
Issues: The court specifically considered whether a false declaration was made regarding dues and the implications for the election's validity. (Paras 8)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner did not prove the alleged false declaration about Government dues, and maintained that the electoral process must have substantial grounds for invalidation. (Paras 16)
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. election petition against respondent no.5 based on false affidavit. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. defense against allegations regarding improper declaration. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. legal determination over respondent no.5's alleged false statement. (Para 8 , 9 , 16) |
| 4. factual basis for the declaration and liability regarding office space. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. conclusion: petition dismissed, costs borne by parties. (Para 17 , 18) |
JUDGMENT
Vibhu Bakhru, J. The petitioner has filed the above-captioned election petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 impugning the election of respondent no.5 as a Member of the Legislative Assembly of the National Capital Territory of Delhi from the Assembly Constituency - 48, South (SC), NCT of Delhi. The petitioner further prays that the 2020 elections to the Assembly of NCT of Delhi from Assembly Constituency - 48, South (SC), NCT of Delhi be declared as null and void and directions be issued to respondent nos. 1 and 3 for conducting fresh elections to the Legislative Assembly of NCT of Delhi from the constituency in question.
2. Respondent no.5 had successfully contested the Assembly Elections of Delhi (Vidhan Sabha) 2020 from the Assembly Constituency - 48, Ambedkar Nagar (SC), NCT of Delhi held on 08.02.2020, as a candidate belonging to the Aam Adami Party. He was declared as the elected candidate from the said constituency on 11.02.2020.
3. The petitioner claims that the assembly election in respect of the said constituency is required to be declared as void under Section 100(d)(i) and 100(d)(iv) read with Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951
4. The present petition is premised on the assertion that respondent no.5 had intentionally given false information in the affidavit filed in Form no. 26, inasmuch as he had affirmed that there were no Government dues payable by him in respect of Government accommodation.
5. The petitioner claims that respondent no. 5 was allotted office space at Community Centre, H-Block, Dakshin Puri, New Delhi by the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (hereafter `DUSIB') and as on 31.12.2016, an amount of Rs.2,77,650/- was due and payable for occupation of the said property to DUSIB (arrayed as respondent no.4).
6. Respondent no.5 has contested the aforesaid assertion but he does not dispute that he had occupied the office space at Community Centre, H-Block, Dakshin Puri, New Delhi. He disputes that any amount is payable by him for occupying the said office. He denies that he has provided any false information in the affidavit filed by him.
7. Respondent no.5 as well as respondent no.2 (The Secretary, Delhi Legislative Assembly) have also contested the present petition on the grounds that (a) it is not verified as required under Section 83(1)(c) the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and therefore, the petition is liable to be rejected; (b) the petitioner is precluded from challenging respondent no.5's election and/or seeking that the election in question be countermanded on the ground of improper acceptance of nomination of respondent no.5 because the petitioner has not raised any such objection with the Returning Officer; and (c) even if it is accepted that an incorrect declaration was made by respondent no.5 in his affidavit, the same is not of substantial character so as to constitute any corrupt practice.
8. In view of the rival assertions, the following issues fall for consideration before this Court:
(a) Whether it is established that respondent no.5 has made a false declaration, as claimed by the petitioner, in Column 8 (ii) of Part A of the affidavit in Form no. 26 to the effect that he had no dues in respect of the occupation/accommodation of the Government property?
(b) If the aforesaid question is answered in the affirmative, whether respondent no.5's election to the Delhi Legislative Assembly is liable to be set aside?
9. The present petition was listed on 29.03.2022. On tha
