The Hindu : National : Grounds for rejection of Rajya Sabha nominations not substantial: counsel

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Friday, Jun 25, 2004

National

National

Grounds for rejection of Rajya Sabha nominations not substantial: counsel

By J.P. Shukla

LUCKNOW, JUNE 24. The Returning Officer for the Rajya Sabha elections in Uttar Pradesh, R.P. Pandey, today heard the arguments of counsel of the two Congress candidates, M.M. Shukla and Harendra Agrawal, and other candidates opposing them on the validity of the rejection of papers of the Congress nominees, in accordance with the instructions issued by the Election Commission.

The hearing remained inconclusive.

The Chief Election Officer of the State, Vijay Sharma, was present as the Observer of the Election Commission as the hearing went on. It will continue tomorrow.

Counsel for the Congress candidates argued that the decision to reject the nominations of the two candidates during the scrutiny earlier was wrong as the grounds for the rejection were not substantial in nature and there were provisions that these could have been remedied at the scrutiny stage. They also argued that nominations could not be rejected on the ground that a candidate had not submitted his personal details in the required format on form 26.

'Not statutory'

Details of criminal records of candidates were required to be furnished only as a result of the instructions of the Election Commission and the Representation of the People Act did not make it binding statutorily. Therefore, even if these details were not given, the nomination paper of a candidate could not be rejected.

Counsel of the Independent candidate, Lalit Suri and the BJP nominee, Arun Shourie, however, controverting these arguments, said that compliance of the Supreme Court judgment, making obligatory on candidates to furnish their crime records, was binding on every one, including the Election Commission. Giving these details was, therefore, a part of filing the nomination papers and if the details were not given, it meant that the nomination forms were incomplete and the Returning Officer had no option but to reject them.

Counsel of Mr. Shourie also argued that the intervention of the Election Commission in the present case instructing the Returning Officer to hear afresh the objections of Congress candidates was wrong as the Returning Officer was the final authority in deciding the validity of nomination papers and the Commission had no powers to intervene. To the argument that the minor lapses could be remedied and nomination papers could not be rejected if the faults were not of substantive in character, counsel for Mr. Shourie said the Act had specifically provided that only mistakes relating to the name and electoral number of a candidate could be corrected. The omissions made by the Congress candidates were of vital nature and it was not for the Returning Officer to point out the mistakes and seek remedies.

The hearing had some unpleasant moments too when the Congress nominee, Harendra Agrawal, alleged that he had submitted some papers in the office of the Returning Officer but these had either been misplaced or removed from files.

The Congress candidates wanted the hearing to end today. This was objected to by the representatives of other candidates. It was already past 5 p.m. and when counsel of non-Congress candidates pleaded that the hearing could not continue indefinitely, Mr. Pandey adjourned the proceedings till 10 a.m. tomorrow.

The Uttar Pradesh Congress Committee president later accused the Returning Officer of acting at the behest of the Samajwadi Party and the Bharatiya Janata Party to linger on the proceedings to prevent his party candidates from approaching the Election Commission again.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National