Bajwa withdraws PIL on MLA’s ‘booth capturing’ remark; HC spares costs despite FIR non-disclosure
Bajwa’s counsel responded to the contentions by arguing that the petition before the bench concerned public welfare and protection of democratic processes
The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s final order dismissing as withdrawn Leader of Opposition Partap Singh Bajwa’s PIL — seeking action over a ruling party MLA’s alleged statement on booth capturing — has stopped short of imposing costs.
The bench on Monday had permitted Bajwa’s counsel to withdraw the petition filed in public interest after taking note of Bajwa’s non-disclosure of a pending FIR against him. At that point in the open court proceedings, the bench had made it clear that costs of Rs 25,000 would be payable. The final order available on Tuesday said: “Learned counsel for the petitioner, after arguing for a while, prays for the withdrawal of the petition. In view of the above, the present petition stands dismissed as withdrawn.”
Bajwa had moved the court seeking directions to Punjab and other official respondents to initiate stringent action against Kulwant Singh Bazigar for his alleged remarks while addressing a gathering. Directions were also sought to the state election commissioner to deploy adequate police force and independent observers at all sensitive polling booth to prevent any misuse of power, coercion, and violence during the municipal polls. Initiation of steps were also sought to ensure voters were not subjected to fear, pressure or booth capturing during the polling process.
Punjab Advocate-General Maninderjit Singh Bedi had, however, objected that the petitioner had failed to disclose his antecedents while invoking PIL jurisdiction. Bedi contended that the plea, filed on the eve of polling, did not disclose a pending FIR against Bajwa, though disclosure of credentials and antecedents was mandatory in PIL matters.
Bajwa’s counsel responded to the contentions by arguing that the petition before the bench concerned public welfare and protection of democratic processes. Referring to the MLA’s alleged remarks, he submitted: “It murders our democracy. Elections are foundation of our democracy.” He maintained that the omission was a “bona fide” one and attempted to distinguish the FIR matter as unrelated proceedings.
He also argued that disclosure of pending proceedings was not a mandatory requirement, while filing a PIL, though the practice could not be done away with while seeking relief such as anticipatory bail. In any case, the bench hearing the FIR matter had ruled against coercive action.
