HC junks petition against Sukhbir’s election
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed “at the threshold” an election petition challenging Sukhbir Singh Badal’s election from “10-Firozepur Parliamentary Constituency” during the 2019 General Elections.
Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya asserted the petition did not disclose any cause of action. It also did not contain “mandatory ingredients of corrupt practices/material facts, which is fatal to the case”.
In the petition filed under the provisions the Representation of the People Act for declaring void Badal’s elections before setting it aside, Kashmir Singh had stated that Sukhbir had failed to disclose details of dependent daughters in Form 26, had omitted expenditure incurred during rallies addressed by former Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal and had engaged in corrupt practices such as the distribution of liquor to influence voters.
Sukhbir was represented in the matter by advocate Karambir Singh Nalwa, Lalit Sharma and Ashima Attri. Allowing their application for dismissing the election petition at the threshold, Justice Dahiya, however, observed the allegations were bereft of essential details, such as names, dates, locations, and connections to the respondent or his election agent.
Justice Dahiya asserted: “Merely because the respondent has daughters would in itself not make them dependent too. It is not a case that a daughter cannot but be dependent on father. Therefore, in the absence of material facts regarding non-furnishing of complete particulars in Form 26, the challenge is unsustainable.”
Justice Dahiya observed the petitioner had further alleged violations of the Model Code of Conduct and election expense limits under Section 77 of the RPA. But evidence was not presented to show that the respondent had authorized expenditures exceeding statutory limits or that rallies were conducted with his knowledge or consent
“It is nowhere mentioned that he incurred or authorised incurring of expenditure beyond the limit prescribed under Section 77. So far, as holding of rallies by the ex-chief minister of Punjab is concerned, all material particulars are conspicuously missing here also. Not even a single detail with regard to time, date, venue, presence of the electorate etc has been mentioned. It is not the petition’s case either that the said rallies were held on the asking of the respondent or his election agent,” Justice Dahiya observed.
The court also rejected allegations of cash and liquor distribution by a political aide of the respondent, stating that details of the alleged distribution, including date, time, or beneficiaries, were not furnished. Furthermore, there was no assertion that the respondent or his election agent had given consent for such actions.
