Home » SC reserves order on Tej Bahadur’s plea in opposition to rejection of nomination paper to contest in opposition to PM | India News

SC reserves order on Tej Bahadur’s plea in opposition to rejection of nomination paper to contest in opposition to PM | India News

by newsking24

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court Wednesday refused to adjourn the listening to on sacked BSF Jawan Tej Bahadur‘s plea in opposition to the rejection of his nomination papers to contest 2019 Lok Sabha polls in opposition to Prime Minister Narendra Modi from Varanasi constituency, saying that is “too important matter”.
The apex court docket reserved the order on Bahadur’s plea difficult the Allahabad High Court verdict which had dismissed his election petition in opposition to the ballot panel’s determination to reject his nomination papers.
Whether his nomination was rightly or wrongly rejected by the Election Commission (EC) is determined by his eligibility, the court docket mentioned.
“Why should we grant you liberty for adjournment. You are abusing the process of law. You argue,” a bench headed by Chief Justice S A Bobde informed Bahadur’s counsel.
After Bahadur’s counsel sought adjournment or go over within the matter, the bench mentioned, “We cannot do. This is too important a matter. The respondent is the Prime Minister of India. We have read this matter. You argue your matter”.
The bench, additionally comprising Justices A S Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian, mentioned that adjournment has gone on for months on this case and the court docket wouldn’t give extra time.
Advocate Pradeep Kumar Yadav, showing for Bahadur, argued that petitioner had earlier filed his nomination as an unbiased candidate and later as a candidate of the Samajwadi Party from Varanasi constituency.
The Returning Officer on May 1 final yr had rejected the nomination papers of Bahadur, a Samajwadi Party candidate, who was dismissed from BSF in 2017 after he posted a video on-line complaining concerning the high quality of meals served to the troops.
While rejecting the nomination papers of Bahadur, the Returning Officer had noticed that “the nomination paper is not accompanied by certificate issued in the prescribed manner by the Election Commission to the effect that he has not been dismissed for corruption or disloyalty to the state”.
At the outset on Wednesday, the bench informed Bahadur’s counsel, “You are supposed to annex the certificate that you (Bahadur) were not dismissed from service. You have not done so. Tell us when your nomination was rejected, were you a candidate of a party”.
When Yadav mentioned that ample time was not granted to Bahadur to furnish the certificates, the bench mentioned, “Whether your nomination was rightly or wrongly rejected depends on your eligibility”.
Bahadur’s counsel argued that on April 30, a discover was issued and on May 2 his nomination was rejected.
Referring to the excessive court docket’s verdict, he claimed that Bahadur’s nomination was rejected for “extraneous reasons”.
When he raised objection over look of senior advocate Harish Salve, who was representing Modi within the matter, the bench mentioned, “Every day, we hear advocates at the admission stage. He (respondent) is the Prime Minister of India. We have read the matter you argue your matter.”
Salve mentioned, “This gentleman files two nomination papers in which in one he said that he was dismissed and in other he says he was not dismissed. He did not ask for time. The law says that if he asks for time, he should have been given time not exceeding two days.”
Salve mentioned that Bahadur had not requested for time and therefore, the returning officer took the choice.
When Bahadur’s counsel urged the court docket to go over the matter in order that he may discover it out from the excessive court docket order, the bench mentioned, “We will not give you adjournment or pass over. This matter is going on for long. You find out now. We will bear it.”
“Where have you argued that you have asked for time for furnishing the certificate but was not granted,” the bench requested the petitioner’s counsel, including, “Show us the evidence that you have asked for time. Your argument before the high court was based on which evidence?”.
When Bahadur’s counsel referred to order of the returning officer, the bench mentioned, “We don’t want this order. We want your request for time. We cannot give adjournment in this matter.”
The petitioner’s counsel mentioned after Bahadur had sought time, the returning officer had handed the order.
The bench, after listening to the submissions, reserved its order within the matter.
“In a nut-shell the factual matrix of the case is that on the directions of the Returning officer, the nomination of the appellant to the elections was wrongly rejected for not being presented in a prescribed manner and rejected the nomination/candidature of the Appellant for the Election of the 17th Lok Sabha from 77th Parliamentary Constituency (Varanasi), U.P. to be held in April – May 2019”, Bahadur has mentioned in his plea.
Bahadur mentioned he has sought a declaration that the election of respondent (Narendra Modi) be declared as void and the order handed by the returning officer dated May 1, 2019, rejecting his nomination be put aside.
He mentioned the excessive court docket had failed to understand that nomination letter of the appellant has been rejected by the district Election Officer by going in opposition to the intention of the authorized provisions and by misusing the provisions talked about within the sections 9 and 33(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
On May 9, final yr, the highest court docket had rejected his plea by which he has challenged EC’s determination to reject his nomination papers from Varanasi Lok Sabha seat.
The high court docket had mentioned that it doesn’t discover any grounds to entertain the plea.

Source hyperlink

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Select Language »
%d bloggers like this: