Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 184
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jasmeet Singh, J
PRATAP CHANDRA – Appellant
Versus
MR. MANISH SISODIA – Respondent
EL.PET. 1/2020 | I.A. 38633/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Pratap Chandra-in-Person
For the Respondents: Mr. Gautam Narayan Sr.Adv., Mr. Rishikesh Kumar, Ms. Asmita, Mr. Mohd Irsad, Mr. Karan Sharma, Ms. Sheenupriya, Mr. Rajat Jain, Mr. Abhiram Venugopal Advs.
Election petitions must meet procedural requirements and demonstrate that alleged violations materially affected election results to be maintainable.
Headnote:(A) Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Sections 33A, 80, 81, 100, 125, 126 - Petition challenging election for violation of rules regarding campaigning in the last 48 hours before polling and non-disclosure of a criminal case in nomination. - Allegations included continued campaigning and display of materials violating Section 126, and suppression of a FIR by the respondent. - The court found the petition lacked material facts to demonstrate how violations affected the election result, as well as failure to comply with Section 83 of the RP Act. -
Result: The petition was dismissed due to insufficient pleading and non-compliance with statutory requirements. (Paras 22-52)
(B) Election Law - Requirements for election petitions - Strict compliance with procedural norms under the RP Act is needed; general or vague allegations will not suffice and must establish a direct effect on the election's result. (Paras 27-41)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. election petition filed under rp act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. petitioner argues election was vitiated by violations. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. respondent questions maintainability of the petition. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. court emphasizes strict adherence to election law. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 5. court finds petition lacks material facts. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 6. allegations must link directly to election result. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 7. non-disclosure of fir does not imply ground for voiding election. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50) |
| 8. election petition is dismissed for lack of cause. (Para 51 , 52) |
JUDGMENT
1. The present election petition has been filed by the petitioner under Sections 33A , 80, 81, 125, 126 read with Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (“the RP Act”), against the election of respondent from AC-57, Patparganj, National Capital Territory of Delhi, in the Legislative Assembly Elections held in February 2020.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. The Election Commission of India issued the notification dated 06.01.2020 for holding the General Elections to the Legislative Assembly of NCT of Delhi. As per the notified schedule, the last date for making nominations was 21.01.2020, scrutiny of nominations was conducted on 22.01.2020, polling took place on 08.02.2020 and the results were declared on 11.02.2020.
3. The petitioner contested the said election from AC-57, Patparganj, as a candidate of the Rashtriya Rashtrawadi Party. His nomination was accepted by the Returning Officer on 22.01.2020 and a candidate identity card was issued to him thereafter.
4. The respondent contested the election from the same constituency as a candidate of the Aam Aadmi Party. Upon completion of polling and counting of votes, respondent was declared elected, having secured 70,163 votes, whereas the petitioner secured 95 votes. The results were formally declared by the Returning Officer on 11.02.2020.
5. The petitioner alleges that, in violation of Section 126 of the Act, election campaigning and display of election material continued during the prohibited forty-eight-hour period prior to the conclusion of polling. Despite his representations dated 03.02.2020, 07.02.2020 and 08.02.2020 to the Chief Election Officer and the Election Media Certification and Monitoring Committee complaining of continued display of hoardings, bus shelter advertisements and other campaign material, no effective action was taken.
6. It is petitioner’s case that while he strictly complied with Section 126 of the RP Act and ceased all canvassing by 5:00 PM on 06.02.2020, other political parties and candidates continued campaigning till the date of polling, thereby vitiating the electoral process and denying him a level playing field. The petitioner further alleges that respondent concealed material information in his nomination affidavit (Form 26) by failing to disclose FIR No. 696/2013 registered under the Prevention of Insult to National Honour Act, 1971, amounting to suppression of material facts and rendering the nomination of the respondent liable to rejection; although an objection in this regard was raised at the stage of scrutiny, the Returning Officer, by order dated 22.01.2020, rejected the objection and accepted the nomination of respondent.
7. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the petitioner has sought setting aside of the election of respondent from AC 57, Patparganj, declaration of the election as void, and issuance of directions for conducting a fresh election, along with other consequential reliefs.
8. During the pendency of the proceedings, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were deleted from the array of parties by order dated 24.03.2021.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
9. Mr. Pratap Chandra, petitioner-in-person, submits that the election of respondent from AC 57, Patparganj, stands vitiated on account of blatant and c
