Election Petitions Take 5 Years With Ruling Party, 5 Months Without: MP High Court's Sharp Rebuke in Minister's Asset Disclosure Case

JABALPUR, MP – In a hearing that cast a harsh spotlight on the perceived timelines of electoral justice, the Madhya Pradesh High Court delivered a pointed oral observation regarding delays in deciding election petitions. The bench, comprising Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf, remarked that such petitions often take five years to conclude when a ruling party member is involved, but a mere five months otherwise.

The court's candid commentary came during the hearing of a writ petition alleging that the state government was stonewalling an Election Commission of India (ECI) inquiry into the non-disclosure of assets by a sitting cabinet minister, Govind Singh Rajput, in his 2023 election affidavit. The case, Rajkumar Singh v Election Commission of India , probes the critical intersection of administrative cooperation, electoral integrity, and the judiciary's role in compelling state action.

---

The Core Allegation: Concealment of Properties

The petitioner, Rajkumar Singh, represented by Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat, has alleged that Govind Singh Rajput, a BJP MLA and a cabinet minister in the Madhya Pradesh government, concealed six properties when filing his nomination (Form 26). This act, the petitioner contends, constitutes a violation of Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which penalizes the filing of a false affidavit with imprisonment, a fine, or both.

Following the petitioner's complaint, the ECI took cognizance and directed the state's Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) to investigate. The CEO, in turn, tasked the local Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) and Collector with fact-finding. However, the petitioner claims the investigation stalled, attributing the inaction to Rajput's influential position. The SDO allegedly refused to proceed, arguing that with the conclusion of the election process, the authority vested in these officers had been "diluted."

This administrative impasse prompted the petitioner to seek judicial intervention through a writ petition, aiming not to challenge the election itself, but to compel the state machinery to cooperate with the ECI's ongoing inquiry.

A Contentious Courtroom Exchange

The hearing on September 25 saw the High Court bench pointedly questioning the State's counsel, Additional Advocate General Abhijeet Awasthi, about the delay in providing the necessary information to the ECI. The State's counsel initially submitted that all information had been "communicated internally" to the ECI and the onus was now on the Commission to act.

The bench was unconvinced, noting that the ECI had been sending repeated reminders to the State for the very same information. "What decision [will] the ECI take?" the court questioned, highlighting the State's non-cooperation as the primary roadblock.

When the State's counsel attempted to justify the five-month timeline from the complaint in March to the submission of a report in July, he drew a parallel to the statutory framework for election petitions. "In Representation of Peoples Act, there is a provision that election petitions should be decided in six months. They are decided in five years," the counsel argued, seemingly normalizing the delay.

This argument elicited the bench's most striking observation of the day.

"Don't take such a stand that because election petitions take 5 years. We know why they take five years...because there is a ruling party. If it's a losing party, if it's not a party in power, it will be decided in five months," the bench orally remarked.

This sharp rebuke underscored the court's impatience with the State's justification and signaled a deeper judicial awareness of perceived inequities in the electoral dispute resolution process.

State Counsel's "Internal Communication" Defense

In a notable turn, the State's counsel argued that the communication between the state electoral officers and the ECI was an "internal matter." He claimed to be appearing in his capacity as a Deputy District Electoral Officer/Returning Officer , asserting, "We are part of the Election Commission... It is not a case that it is state versus election commission, we are part of it."

The court, however, remained focused on the core issue of non-compliance. It distinguished the present matter from a formal election petition, clarifying that its concern was not the validity of the election but the State's failure to assist the ECI's investigation into an alleged false affidavit.

"We are not going to transgress into the jurisdiction of the Election Commission," the bench assured. "The only thing is here the state is not co-operating."

Faced with the court's firm stance, the State's counsel eventually conceded that another letter had been received from the ECI and that the State would be "obliged" to respond. The bench promptly offered to record this statement, pressing for a definitive timeline for compliance.

Legal Implications and Path Forward

This case illuminates several critical legal and procedural questions:

1. Writ Jurisdiction vs. Election Petition: The court's careful distinction between this writ proceeding and an election petition is significant. While an election petition is the statutory remedy to challenge an election's outcome, a writ petition under Article 226 can be a potent tool to address administrative inertia and compel statutory bodies (like the ECI and state electoral officers) to perform their duties. This case demonstrates the use of writ jurisdiction to enforce the procedural integrity of the electoral process, separate from its final result.

2. The Power of the ECI: The proceedings highlight the practical limitations of the ECI's authority. Despite its constitutional mandate to ensure free and fair elections, the Commission remains dependent on the cooperation of the state executive machinery for investigations. When that cooperation is withheld, particularly in cases involving powerful political figures, the ECI's enforcement capacity is severely tested, often necessitating judicial intervention.

3. Judicial Scrutiny of Executive Action: The High Court's oral remarks serve as a powerful form of judicial oversight. By calling out the perceived double standards in handling election-related litigation, the court sends a strong message against procedural delays that could undermine public faith in the electoral and judicial systems.

Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora, appearing for Minister Rajput, suggested that the court first seek a status report directly from the ECI to understand its current position. The ECI's counsel, Siddharth Sharma, raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition and requested time to file relevant documents.

The court, after recording the submissions, granted two weeks for the ECI and other respondents to file their documents and listed the matter for further hearing on October 9. The outcome of this case will be closely watched, as it may set an important precedent on the judiciary's role in ensuring accountability and timely action in response to allegations of electoral malpractice against those in power.