Instant election petition has been filed challenging the result of biennial election of Rajya Sabha/Council of State, which was declared on 26.6.2004.

The present Election petition was filed on 13.07.2004. Thereafter, the matter was placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for nomination of Bench and in turn thereof, Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.K.Mehrotra was nominated. Subsequently, Hon'ble Mr. Justice O.P.Srivastava was nominated and thereafter Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shri Narayan Shukla was nominated to deal with the matter but later on His Lordship released the case and in turn this Bench has been nominated by the Hon'ble Chief Justice.

2. At the very threshold of arguments, Shri S.N.Shukla learned counsel for the election petitioner had not pressed the relief with regard to the validity/vires of amended provision contained in Section 3 of Representation of the People Act, hence, question with regard to validity of amended Section 3 of Representation of the People Act is not dealt with.

3. The election petitioner, Mr. Madan Mohan, whose nomination as Congress candidate was rejected by the returning officer, has challenged the election of respondents 1 to 11. They have been elected for Council of States (Rajya Sabha) by the elected members of the U.P. Legislative Assembly, notified by Election Commission of India under Section 39 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RP Act/RPA”) vide notification dated 4.6.2004, as amended by subsequent notifications dated 10.6.2004 and 23.6.2004, the result of which was declared on 26.6.2004.

4. Those declared elected for the Rajya Sabha are respondents 1 to 11 viz., (1) Mr. Arun Shourie (Bhartiya Janta Party-”BJP”); (2) Mr. Kamaal Akhtar (Samajwadi Party-”SP”); (3) Mr. Nand Kishore, (SP); (4) Mrs. Jaya Bachchan (SP); (5) Mr. Bhagwati Singh (SP); (6) Ms. Mayawati (Bahujan Samaj Party-”BSP”); (7) Dr. Murli Manohar Joshi (BJP); (8) Mr. Ram Narain Sahu (SP); (9) Mr. Satish Chandra Mishra (BSP); (10) Mr. Anil Ambani (Independent); & (11) Late Lalit Suri (Independent).

5. It has been informed by the learned counsel for the parties that during the pendency of the petition, Mrs. Jaya Bachchan (respondent 4), Ms. Mayawati (respondent 6) & Mr. Anil Ambani (respondent -11) have resigned and Mr. Lalit Suri (respondent -11) died.

6. Apart from respondents 1 to 11, who were “contesting candidates” and “elected”, the petitioner has also arrayed Sri Harendra Agarwal as respondent-12, who, along with the petitioner, had filed his nomination as Congress candidate at the election in question and his nomination as well as the nomination of petitioner were rejected. The respondent 12 and the petitioner were, therefore, not “contesting candidates” under S. 38 read with S. 82, RP Act.

7. Apart from claiming declaration with regard to validity of nomination paper filed by the petitioner, the petitioner had also prayed for quashing of orders dated 19.6.2004 and 25.6.2004 passed by the returning officer. The petitioner has also claimed to declare the election return candidate and respondents no. 2,4,5,10,11 to be void. The following relief has been claimed by the petitioner under the election petition:-

“(1) Declare that the nomination paper filed by the petitioner was valid and to quash the orders dated 19.6.2004 and 25.6.2004 of the returning officer.

(2) Declare that the election of the respondents 2, 4, 5, 10 and 11 to the Council of States from the State of U.P is void.

(3) Declare the petitioner elected to the Council of States in view of the (I) and (ii) above, or in case relief No. 1 only is granted, then declare the entire results of the election void.”

8. The applicants have raised common ground while challenging the maintainability of the election petition by moving present applications with submission that looking to the pleadings on record there is no sufficient material which may call for adjudication by this court and the averments contained in certain paragraphs are vague and the election petition s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document