2019 Gautam Buddha Nagar Polls: SC Issues Notice To EC, District Magistrate In Election Plea

The CJI said the Allahabad High Court was wrong in removing the district magistrate as a party from the petition at the very least.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notices to the Election Commission of India and the Gautam Buddha Nagar district magistrate on a plea against a Allahabad High Court order allowing their removal as parties in an election petition.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing a plea by one Geeta Rani Sharma alleging wrongful rejection of her nomination papers during the 2019 Lok Sabha elections for the Gautam Buddha Nagar constituency in UP.

While issuing a notice, the CJI said the Allahabad High Court was wrong in removing the district magistrate as a party from the petition at the very least.

"As per the allegations, the nomination papers were wrongly rejected. The winning candidate would not be able to answer the said assertions. The high court was wrong in deleting at least the district magistrate from the array of parties,” said the court. The plea would come up for hearing sometime in the week starting March 24.

Aside from the poll panel and the district magistrate, winning BJP candidate Mahesh Sharma, and other probables Bhim Prakash Jiyasu and Kishor Singh were made parties to the petition.

The plea before the high court was filed under Section 100(1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, challenging the validity of the election based on alleged irregularities in the rejection of nomination papers by the returning officer.

The high court relied on Section 82 of the Representation of the People Act to conclude the EC and the district magistrate were not necessary parties in the petition.

Section 82 stipulates an election petition should include returned candidates and other contesting candidates as respondents, but does not mention the ECI or the district magistrate.

The high court had said the petitioner was not at liberty to make parties of her choice and her challenge would survive as long as as she complied with the law and its procedure.

The case's outcome could have significant implications on the interpretation of the law besides the scope of relevant parties in election petitions.