Sultan Gandhi v. The Election Commission Of India Nirvachan Sadan New Delhi And

In Person Anupriya Srivastava HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J. Heard the petitioner (in person), Shri O. P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Anupriya Srivastava, learned counsel for Election Commission of India, respondent no.1 and learned Standing Counsel, who appears on behalf of the State-respondents. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following main prayer : "Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Parliament certiorari quashing and setting aside the election of Opposite Party No.5 to the post of Member of (Lok Sabha- Amethi Parliamentary Constituency 37) declared on

04.06.2024, on the ground that the said election is vitiated due to filing of a false affidavit / suppression of material facts /violation of mandatory provisions of law, thereby rendering the entire election process illegal and void ab initio, in the interest of justice." The petitioner has placed reliance upon Section 125A of Representation of People Act, 1951, which provides that any candidate who furnishes false information or conceals material facts in the affidavit filed by him before the Electoral Officer liable for prosecution and punishment with imprisonment up to six months or with fine or with both. The petitioner had earlier lodged FIR/Case Crime No.823C/2012 under Sections 147, 109, 504 of I.P.C. and Section 2 of The Prevention of Insult to National Flag Honour Act, 1971 at Police Station Kotwali, District Raebareli on 11.08.2012 against respondent no.5, Kishori Lal s/o Late Amar Nath, Member of Parliament 2 WRIC No. 10770 of 2025 from Lok Sabha Constituency, Amethi. Initially, a final report was filed, whereafter a protest application was moved before the Magistrate concerned. The Magistrate ordered further investigation. Another final report was filed on 27.03.2014, which was rejected by the Magistrate by order dated 23.12.2016. A direction was issued to conduct further investigation and submit a progress report before the Court. Further investigation is going on against respondent no.5 by the police. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raebareli has also issued a notice to the Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali on 17.09.2025, directing submission of a progress report by 27.09.2025. Till date, no compliance has been made by the S.H.O., Police Station Kotwali, District Raebareli. The petitioner has filed an RTI application and has received a copy of the affidavit filed by respondent no.5 on 28.10.2025. Since, in the nomination form, respondent no.5 has falsely declared his criminal antecedents, the petitioner contends that his election ought to be set aside, and therefore, this petition has been filed with the aforesaid prayer. The petitioner, who appears in person, has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.12000 of 2025 "Poonam vs. Dule Singh", decided on

06.11.2025, wherein the Supreme Court has entertained the said special leave petition and observed that the petitioner therein had suppressed material information and failed to comply with the mandatory requirement under Rule 24-A of Madhya Pradesh Nagar Palika Nirvachan Niyam, 1994. The acceptance of her nomination form was rightly held to be improper. She, being a returned candidate, her election was declared null and void. The Court observed that because of filing a false affidavit, the acceptance of her nomination form was vitiated and the election was materially affected. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for Election Commission of India has pointed out that Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India and has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in Ram Phal Kundu vs. Kamal Sharma reported in AIR 2004 SC 1657 and argued that no writ petition is maintainable challenging the election of a returned candidate, the only remedy available to an aggrieved person is to file an election petition. Hon'ble Supreme Court, relying upon the judgments in N. P. Punnuswami 3 WRIC No. 10770 of 2025 vs. Returning Officer reported in (1952) 1 SCR 218, Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Commission reported in (1978) 2 SCR 272 and Election Commission vs. Shivaji reported in (1988) 1 SCR 878, has observed that once the nomination paper of a candidate is rejected, the Act provides for only one remedy i.e. the remedy of filing an election petition to be presented after election is over. There is no remedy provided at any intermediate stage. We have gone through paragraph no.24 of the case of Ram Phal Kundu (supra), which reads as follows : "It may be noticed that the petition by Kamal Sharma was filed on 6.2.2000 and the same was allowed by the Election Commission very next day i.e. on

7.2.2000 by which a direction was issued to the Returning Officer to hold a fresh scrutiny. There is nothing on record to indicate nor it appeal's probable that before passing the order, the Election Commission issued any notice to Bachan Singh. Apparently the order was passed behind his back. The order of the Election Commission to the effect that the Returning Officer shall take further consequential steps as may become necessary, by treating all earlier proceedings in relation to said candidates, as ab initio void and redraw the list of validly nominated candidates could not have been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to Bachan Singh. That apart, it has been held by a catena of decisions of this Court that once the nomination paper of candidate is rejected, the Act provides for only one remedy, that remedy being by an election petition to be presented after the election is over, and there is no remedy provided at any intermediate stage. (See N.P. Punnuswami V. Returning Officer MANU/SC/0049/1952: [1952]1SCR218, Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commission MANU/SC/0209/1977 1978]2SCR272, Election Commission v. Shivaji : MANU/SC/0379/1987 [1988]1SCR878). Therefore, the order passed by the Election Commission on 7.2.2000 was not only illegal but was also without jurisdiction and the respondent Kamal Sharma can get no advantage from the same. The inference drawn and the findings recorded by the High Court on the basis of the order of the Election Commission, therefore, cannot be sustained." It appears that the nomination paper of Kamal Sharma was rejected by the Returning Officer. Kamal Sharma thereafter filed an application before the Election Commission on 07.02.2000, on which a direction was issued to the Returning Officer to hold a fresh scrutiny. 4 WRIC No. 10770 of 2025 The Court observed that before passing such an order on the appeal of Kamal Sharma, no notice was issued to Bachan Singh and the order was passed behind his back. The order of the Election Commission to the effect that the Returning Officer shall take further consequential steps as may become necessary by treating all earlier proceedings in relation to the said candidates as ab initio void and redrawing the list of validly nominated candidates, could not have been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to Bachan Singh. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 has also pointed out that from the facts mentioned in the writ petition, it is evident that till date no charge sheet has been filed by the police against respondent no.5 nor it has been accepted or summons issued by the Magistrate concerned to respondent no.5. Therefore, it cannot be said that any criminal case was pending at the time when he filed his nomination form or he furnished incorrect information to the Returning Officer. We have gone through page no.18, which is Part A of Annexure No.1 to the writ petition. In the affidavit filed, the declaration is as follows : "(5) Pending Criminal Cases I declare that there is no pending criminal case against me." We do not find, prima facie, any substance in the present writ petition on its merit. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. November 7, 2025 Mahesh (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) MAHESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

In Person Anupriya Srivastava HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J. Heard the petitioner (in person), Shri O. P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Anupriya Srivastava, learned counsel for Election Commission of India, respondent no.1 and learned Standing Counsel, who appears on behalf of the State-respondents. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following main prayer : "Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Parliament certiorari quashing and setting aside the election of Opposite Party No.5 to the post of Member of (Lok Sabha- Amethi Parliamentary Constituency 37) declared on

04.06.2024, on the ground that the said election is vitiated due to filing of a false affidavit / suppression of material facts /violation of mandatory provisions of law, thereby rendering the entire election process illegal and void ab initio, in the interest of justice." The petitioner has placed reliance upon Section 125A of Representation of People Act, 1951, which provides that any candidate who furnishes false information or conceals material facts in the affidavit filed by him before the Electoral Officer liable for prosecution and punishment with imprisonment up to six months or with fine or with both. The petitioner had earlier lodged FIR/Case Crime No.823C/2012 under Sections 147, 109, 504 of I.P.C. and Section 2 of The Prevention of Insult to National Flag Honour Act, 1971 at Police Station Kotwali, District Raebareli on 11.08.2012 against respondent no.5, Kishori Lal s/o Late Amar Nath, Member of Parliament 2 WRIC No. 10770 of 2025 from Lok Sabha Constituency, Amethi. Initially, a final report was filed, whereafter a protest application was moved before the Magistrate concerned. The Magistrate ordered further investigation. Another final report was filed on 27.03.2014, which was rejected by the Magistrate by order dated 23.12.2016. A direction was issued to conduct further investigation and submit a progress report before the Court. Further investigation is going on against respondent no.5 by the police. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raebareli has also issued a notice to the Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali on 17.09.2025, directing submission of a progress report by 27.09.2025. Till date, no compliance has been made by the S.H.O., Police Station Kotwali, District Raebareli. The petitioner has filed an RTI application and has received a copy of the affidavit filed by respondent no.5 on 28.10.2025. Since, in the nomination form, respondent no.5 has falsely declared his criminal antecedents, the petitioner contends that his election ought to be set aside, and therefore, this petition has been filed with the aforesaid prayer. The petitioner, who appears in person, has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.12000 of 2025 "Poonam vs. Dule Singh", decided on

06.11.2025, wherein the Supreme Court has entertained the said special leave petition and observed that the petitioner therein had suppressed material information and failed to comply with the mandatory requirement under Rule 24-A of Madhya Pradesh Nagar Palika Nirvachan Niyam, 1994. The acceptance of her nomination form was rightly held to be improper. She, being a returned candidate, her election was declared null and void. The Court observed that because of filing a false affidavit, the acceptance of her nomination form was vitiated and the election was materially affected. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for Election Commission of India has pointed out that Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India and has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in Ram Phal Kundu vs. Kamal Sharma reported in AIR 2004 SC 1657 and argued that no writ petition is maintainable challenging the election of a returned candidate, the only remedy available to an aggrieved person is to file an election petition. Hon'ble Supreme Court, relying upon the judgments in N. P. Punnuswami 3 WRIC No. 10770 of 2025 vs. Returning Officer reported in (1952) 1 SCR 218, Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Commission reported in (1978) 2 SCR 272 and Election Commission vs. Shivaji reported in (1988) 1 SCR 878, has observed that once the nomination paper of a candidate is rejected, the Act provides for only one remedy i.e. the remedy of filing an election petition to be presented after election is over. There is no remedy provided at any intermediate stage. We have gone through paragraph no.24 of the case of Ram Phal Kundu (supra), which reads as follows : "It may be noticed that the petition by Kamal Sharma was filed on 6.2.2000 and the same was allowed by the Election Commission very next day i.e. on

7.2.2000 by which a direction was issued to the Returning Officer to hold a fresh scrutiny. There is nothing on record to indicate nor it appeal's probable that before passing the order, the Election Commission issued any notice to Bachan Singh. Apparently the order was passed behind his back. The order of the Election Commission to the effect that the Returning Officer shall take further consequential steps as may become necessary, by treating all earlier proceedings in relation to said candidates, as ab initio void and redraw the list of validly nominated candidates could not have been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to Bachan Singh. That apart, it has been held by a catena of decisions of this Court that once the nomination paper of candidate is rejected, the Act provides for only one remedy, that remedy being by an election petition to be presented after the election is over, and there is no remedy provided at any intermediate stage. (See N.P. Punnuswami V. Returning Officer MANU/SC/0049/1952: [1952]1SCR218, Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commission MANU/SC/0209/1977 1978]2SCR272, Election Commission v. Shivaji : MANU/SC/0379/1987 [1988]1SCR878). Therefore, the order passed by the Election Commission on 7.2.2000 was not only illegal but was also without jurisdiction and the respondent Kamal Sharma can get no advantage from the same. The inference drawn and the findings recorded by the High Court on the basis of the order of the Election Commission, therefore, cannot be sustained." It appears that the nomination paper of Kamal Sharma was rejected by the Returning Officer. Kamal Sharma thereafter filed an application before the Election Commission on 07.02.2000, on which a direction was issued to the Returning Officer to hold a fresh scrutiny. 4 WRIC No. 10770 of 2025 The Court observed that before passing such an order on the appeal of Kamal Sharma, no notice was issued to Bachan Singh and the order was passed behind his back. The order of the Election Commission to the effect that the Returning Officer shall take further consequential steps as may become necessary by treating all earlier proceedings in relation to the said candidates as ab initio void and redrawing the list of validly nominated candidates, could not have been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to Bachan Singh. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 has also pointed out that from the facts mentioned in the writ petition, it is evident that till date no charge sheet has been filed by the police against respondent no.5 nor it has been accepted or summons issued by the Magistrate concerned to respondent no.5. Therefore, it cannot be said that any criminal case was pending at the time when he filed his nomination form or he furnished incorrect information to the Returning Officer. We have gone through page no.18, which is Part A of Annexure No.1 to the writ petition. In the affidavit filed, the declaration is as follows : "(5) Pending Criminal Cases I declare that there is no pending criminal case against me." We do not find, prima facie, any substance in the present writ petition on its merit. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. November 7, 2025 Mahesh (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) MAHESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench