Top News

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Saturday, January 17, dismissed a petition challenging the election of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Manish Sisodia from Patparganj in the 2020 Assembly polls.

Justice Jasmeet Singh said Pratap Chandra, who contested against Sisodia as a Rashtriya Rashtrawadi Party candidate, had failed to establish a specific cause of action in his election petition.

Sisodia had won the seat after securing 70,163 votes. The petitioner had secured 95 votes.

The petitioner had contended that while he had strictly complied with the law and ceased from canvassing two days before the election, other political parties and candidates continued campaigning till the polling day, vitiating the electoral process and denying him a level-playing field.

He had also claimed that Sisodia had not disclosed the existence of a 2013 FIR against him registered under the Prevention of Insult to National Honour Act, 1971, in his nomination.

In its verdict, the court said the petitioner had only made “general allegations”, without laying down the material facts required in law, which went to the root of the maintainability of the election petition.

It said the photographs given by the petitioner to allege violation of the “silence period” before polls only showed generic party hoardings displaying just the party symbol and name, without any specific reference to Sisodia.

“The petitioner has not pleaded with specificity that these hoardings were erected, installed or published with the knowledge, consent or authorisation of the respondent. The allegation that such static hoardings constitute ‘propagation’ under section 126 of the RP (Representation of the People) Act cannot be accepted,” the court said.

It also said for the purposes of the disclosure under the RP Act, the mere registration of an FIR by itself did not imply that there was a pending criminal case, and in the present case, not even charges were framed.

“It is only when charges are framed or cognisance of the offence is taken by the court, that the statutory obligation to disclose arises. The object behind mandating disclosure of criminal antecedents of a contesting candidate is to ensure that the electorate is made aware of such antecedents so as to enable voters to make an informed choice while exercising their franchise,” the court clarified.

It also said in the absence of any pleading or material to demonstrate that Sisodia had knowledge of the FIR, non-disclosure could not not be construed as deliberate concealment so as to attract penal or electoral consequences.