Politicians Always Want To Carry A Good Public Image: Allahabad HC Dismisses Petitioner's Claim That Rejection Of Nomination Damaged His Image
The Allahabad High Court has held that the Petitioner had the misconception that the Returning Officer's rejection of his Nomination Form had damaged his public image.
The Court dismissed an Election Petition filed by one member of the Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP) against the order of the RO. The RO had rejected his nomination because another BJP candidate had already filed his nomination.
“The Court finds that Election-Petitioner is more conscious of his public image which is not an incorrect approach since a socially and politically active person who engaged with people of his area always wants to carry a good public image and good fan following. A political person is normally image conscious since it always carry with him. It appears that Election-Petitioner is carrying an impression that since his Nomination Form was rejected by Returning Officer, it amounts to be a dent on his public image that he has undertaken something illegal or there was something fishy in his Nomination Form. However, as referred above, from bare perusal of order passed by the Returning Officer, the impression does not appear to be true”, Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery noted.
Advocate Utkarsh Srivastava appeared for the Election petitioner, and Advocate K.R Singh appeared for the Respondent.
The Election Petitioner, a member of the BJP, ran as a candidate for the Bijnor Parliamentary Constituency in Uttar Pradesh during the 2014 Parliamentary Election. He submitted his Nomination Form with the party symbol, accompanied by Form A and Form B, per the provisions of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 (ESRA Order). However, another BJP candidate (Respondent) had also submitted his Nomination Form with all the necessary documents. The Appellant filed objections against the nomination of Respondents. Despite the objections, the RO accepted the Nomination Form of the Respondent through an order. The Petitioner, aggrieved by the order, approached the Court by way of an Election Petition challenging the order of the RO and seeking to get the Respondent’s result declared null and void.
The Court placed reliance on the Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Kashi Nath Mishra v Vikramaditya Pandey and others [(1998) 8 SCC 735], whereby the Apex Court had dismissed an election petition due to the expiration of the assembly's term and the subsequent holding of another election and the formation of a new assembly.
The Court noted that the RO believed that an affidavit from an authorized person of the party in favour of the revised candidate had limited legal standing from the point of nomination. The reasoning behind this decision did not involve any fraudulent or forged activity by the Petitioner, the Court noted.
The Court noted that the Returned Candidate had taken an oath and was duly elected without any allegations of improper conduct during the election. The only dispute was regarding the rejection of the Election Petitioner's Nomination Form. The Court, however, observed that since subsequent proceedings in the election have not been disputed, there will be no legal consequence even if the petition is allowed.
The Court referred to the Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Dhartipakar Madanlal Agarwal v Rajiv Gandhi [(1987) Supp. SCC 93] and reiterated that adjudicating an election petition after a significant amount of time has passed would be a futile exercise.
Furthermore, the Court noted that the Election-Petitioner was conscious of his public image, which was not an incorrect approach. The Court also noted that the Election-Petitioner mistakenly believed that the Returning Officer's rejection of his Nomination Form had negatively impacted his public image and implied wrongdoing. However, upon reviewing the order in question, the Court held that no evidence to support these beliefs.
The Court emphasized that there are no permanent enemies or friends in politics. The Election-Petitioner and the Returned Candidate have declared themselves dedicated National Political Party workers.
“It is an old saying that in a political life, there are no permanent enemies or friends. Both Election-Petitioner and Returned Candidate have declared themselves to be a dedicated workers of the said National Political Party and it also appears that this election petition was filed only to clear a cloud of doubt which might have created by rejection of Nomination Form of Election-Petitioner. As referred above, this was only a misconception of the Election-Petitioner”, the Court noted.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Election Petition.
Cause Title: Rajender Kumar v Kunwar Bhartendra Singh
