New Delhi
17 Dec 2022 10:19 AM
The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a petition challenging the election of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi from Wayanad constituency in the 2019 Lok Sabha elections.
A bench comprising Justices AS Bopanna and Dipankar Dutta dismissed the petition filed by Saritha Nair, an accused in the high profile solar scam case, whose nomination to contest from Wayanad seat was rejected. She approached the Supreme Court challenging the judgment passed by the High Court of Kerala in October 2019 to reject her election petition.
In 2020, the Supreme Court had earlier dismissed her Special Leave Petition for non-appearance of the counsel in 2020. Later, her counsel moved an application seeking restoration of the petition stating that the default was due to technical difficulties in appearing through VC.
On Friday, the bench restored the petition and dismissed the same on merits.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner on merits, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed”, the bench stated in the order.
The High Court had held that the petition was not filed and verified in the proper format as mandated under Section 83 of the Representation of People Act.
“…petitioner has not filed the election petition in accordance with the mandatory requirements of law and is filed in a casual manner without even attesting many of the Annexures, and without properly marking the same”,
Further, the HC noted that Saritha S Nair was convicted in two criminal cases for cheating and was therefore disqualified from contesting elections as per Section 8(3) of the RP Act. Hence, the High Court held that her election petition was not maintainable. In fact, her nominations to contest from Ernakulam and Wayanad constituencies were rejected by the Returning Officers on this ground. Though Saritha Nair pointed out that her nomination to contest in Amethi(UP) against Gandhi was accepted by the Returning Officer there, the High Court did not accept this argument holding that she was disqualified from contesting elections.
“..the election petitions are dismissed on the ground of incurable defects pointed out above in terms of Sec.86(1) of Act, 1951, and that the petitioner was disqualified from contesting the election in view of the inhibitions contained under Sec.8(3) of Act, 1951, read with Article 102(1)(e) of the Constitution of India”, a bench of Justice Shaji P Chaly of the High Court observed.
