DT
PT
Subscribe To Print Edition About The Tribune Code Of Ethics Download App Advertise with us Classifieds
search-icon-img
search-icon-img
Advertisement

BJP leader Sanjay Tandon challenges Manish Tewari’s election to Lok Sabha from Chandigarh; moves Punjab and Haryana High Court        

Tandon was defeated by Congress’s Manish Tewari by a margin of 2,504 votes
  • fb
  • twitter
  • whatsapp
  • whatsapp
featured-img featured-img
Congress MP Manish Tewari at Parliament House complex during the Budget session, in New Delhi. PTI file
Advertisement

Chandigarh, August 9

BJP leader Sanjay Tandon has challenged the election of Chandigarh MP Manish Tewari in the Punjab and Haryana High Court on several grounds, including “promises of a corrupt nature”.

Tandon, who was the BJP candidate for the 2024 Lok Sabha polls, was defeated by Congress’s Manish Tewari by a margin of 2,504 votes. The Congress and the Aam Aadmi Party had fought the election in an alliance.

Advertisement

Seeking setting aside of Tewari’s election as a Member of Parliament, Tandon filed the petition in the high court under the Representation People (RP) Act, 1951.

According to the petition, Tewari and party workers “indulged in various acts of omission and commission as various promises of a corrupt nature were made to target the innocent and poor voters.”

Advertisement

“Filling up of guarantee cards and posting videos to lure innocent voters into believing that if they vote for Tewari they will be compensated with Rs 8,500 per month, Rs 1 lakh salary for every first job of every educated youth will be provided and loan waiver and legal guarantee of MSP based on Swaminathan formula,” the petition cited as some of these “promises”.

It argued that the distribution of such “guarantee cards” was an attempt to register people for post-election schemes by way of advertisement in order to “deceptively inform voters that in case they vote for Tewari then a quid pro quo would be formed, which would lead to categoric pecuniary and financial benefit to the voter.”

The petitioner contended that such practices as defined under Section 123 of the RP Act form part of the grounds for declaring the election as void under Section 100 and 101 of the RP Act.

The court has fixed September 9 as the date of hearing in the matter.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
tlbr_img1 Home tlbr_img2 Opinion tlbr_img3 Classifieds tlbr_img4 Videos tlbr_img5 E-Paper