J U D G M E N T

<

SANJEEV NARULA, J.

I.A. No. 3129/2021(under Section 8, 83 and 86 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 r/w Order VI Rule 16 and Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC on behalf of Respondent)

1. Mr. Ramesh, the Petitioner-in-person, contested as an independent candidate in the 2019 general elections for the 04-New Delhi Parliamentary Constituency. He now challenges the election of Respondent [Ms. Meenakshi Lekhi], the returned candidate. Central to his claims are allegations of discrepancies in Respondent’s election expenditure and her involvement in corrupt election practices. In her defence, the Respondent has controverted these accusations, and has further submitted the present application seeking dismissal of the petition, by referencing to Sections 81, 83, and 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 [hereinafter, “the Act”], and Order VI Rule 16 and Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [“CPC”]. This judgment aims to appraise the validity of Respondent’s application and scrutinize the Petitioner’s allegations, thereby determining on the appropriate course of action in this electoral contest.

PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS

2. Petitioner’s grounds of challenge are broadly classified under the following heads:

2.1. Record keeping of the election expenditure and its accessibility: According to Sections 77 and 78 of the Act, every candidate must chronicle their daily election expenditure from nomination day to result day. This record should be submitted to the District Election Officer within thirty days from the date of declaration of the winning candidate. Rule 88 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 [hereinafter, “1961 Rules”] further stipulates that any person can inspect these expense accounts upon payment of necessary fee. However, Petitioner’s request for access to Respondent’s expenditure details under the Right to Information Act, 2005 was declined. The rationale provided was the unavailability of any provision to provide documents pertaining to the candidates of the 2019 Lok Sabha Elections, to the general public.

2.2. Unlawful election practices: Respondent allegedly resorted to unlawful methods to secure a win, including the casting of fraudulent votes by election staff, who impersonated legitimate voters.

2.3. Affidavit discrepancies: The affidavit presented by the Respondent, detailing her assets, did not conform to the governing rules.

2.4. Unaccounted expenditures: While submitting her nomination on 19th and 23rd April, 2019, the Respondent was reportedly accompanied by a significant entourage with around 200 vehicles. This substantial expenditure was glaringly absent from the official records. Other unreported costs include outlays on meetings, rallies, the hiring of commercial vehicles, and refreshments. Respondent has misused government resources like vehicles, accommodations, and community centres for campaign activities. She purportedly spent around Rs. 50,00,000/- on promotional materials, in direct violation of the Act and its subordinate rules. Expenses on photography, media advertisements, telecommunication, among others, were also allegedly downplayed. Drawing comparisons to offering bribe, the act of distributing t-shirts to potential voters on 27th April 2019, is also under scrutiny.

2.5. Grand event and expenditure excess: On 01st May 2019, a large-scale event, graced by party stalwarts, ministerial staff, and an estimated crowd of 1,00,000 people, was orchestrated by the Respondent. The financial records do not account for this grand affair, whose costs are believed to surpass Rs. 1 crore, crossing the Election Commission of India’s stipulated ceiling of Rs. 70 lakhs for campaign-related expenses. To further his case, he placed reliance on the judgement in Kanwarlal Gupta v. Amar Nath Chawla and Ors.,1 wherein it was held that expending large amounts towards election related activities, in excess of the prescribed limit, is a corrupt practice.

2.6. Concerns