TrendingVideosIndia
Opinions | CommentEditorialsThe MiddleLetters to the EditorReflections
UPSC | Exam ScheduleExam Mentor
State | Himachal PradeshPunjabJammu & KashmirHaryanaChhattisgarhMadhya PradeshRajasthanUttarakhandUttar Pradesh
City | ChandigarhAmritsarJalandharLudhianaDelhiPatialaBathindaShaharnama
World | ChinaUnited StatesPakistan
Diaspora
Features | The Tribune ScienceTime CapsuleSpectrumIn-DepthTravelFood
Business | My MoneyAutoZone
News Columns | Straight DriveCanada CallingLondon LetterKashmir AngleJammu JournalInside the CapitalHimachal CallingHill View
Don't Miss
Advertisement

Charanjit Singh Channi’s election challenged in Punjab and Haryana High Court

Former Chief Minister Charanjit Singh Channi’s election from the Jalandhar (SC) parliamentary constituency today came under judicial scanner, with a voter moving the Punjab and Haryana High Court alleging the filing of “false and fabricated information to the Election Commission during the election process”. - File photo

Unlock Exclusive Insights with The Tribune Premium

Take your experience further with Premium access. Thought-provoking Opinions, Expert Analysis, In-depth Insights and other Member Only Benefits
Yearly Premium ₹999 ₹349/Year
Yearly Premium $49 $24.99/Year
Advertisement

Tribune News Service

Advertisement

Chandigarh, July 31
Former Chief Minister Charanjit Singh Channi’s election from the Jalandhar (SC) parliamentary constituency today came under judicial scanner, with a voter moving the Punjab and Haryana High Court alleging the filing of “false and fabricated information to the Election Commission during the election process”.
In his election petition, petitioner Gaurav Luthra, through counsel Manit Malhotra, sought directions for declaring that the “respondent was using illegal means and unfair and corrupt practices during the election process for getting elected as MP”.
Luthra also contended that Channi made intentional material concealments in affidavit/form 26 submitted along with his nomination papers. “It is further prayed that the election of the respondent be declared void under Section 100 of the Representation of People Act, 1951,” Malhotra contended on the petitioner’s behalf.
Malhotra submitted the respondent also concealed information about the poll expenditure incurred by him. Rather, there was material concealment of the facts regarding the expenditure. However, due to the connivance of the officials concerned, no action was taken against the respondent, which clearly showed the malafide intentions of the respondent.

Advertisement

Petitioner’s plea

Advertisement
Show comments
Advertisement