No relief to CPI leader against rejection of nomination


New Delhi : The Supreme Court Tuesday refused to grant any relief to prominent Left leader Satyanarayan Singh against the rejection of his nomination papers to contest the ongoing parliamentary elections from Bihar’s Khagaria constituency.

Support TwoCircles

A bench of Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan refused to grant any relief to the Communist Party of India (CPI) leader, saying the court would not entertain the plea when the constituency goes to the polls April 30.

The bench, which also included Justice P. Sathasivam and Justice J.M. Panchal, refused to entertain Singh’s plea, agreeing with the Patna High Court order which said the constitution bars the courts from interfering into poll process after it is set in motion by the Election Commission of India.

Singh had come to the apex court challenging the Patna High Court, which April 17 dismissed Singh’s plea against the Khagaria returning officer’s order rejecting his nomination papers.

The Khagaria returning officer had rejected Singh’s nomination papers on the ground that he had failed to include a properly sworn affidavit disclosing various information about himself, including his educational background, possible criminal antecedents and financial assets and liabilities.

According to the latest electoral laws, candidates contesting an election should apprise their voters of their educational background, possible criminal antecedents and financial assets and liabilities in a proper from prescribed by the poll panel along with a properly sworn affidavit.

Appearing for Singh, senior counsel Nagendra Rai told the bench that his clients had properly disclosed all the relevant details about himself in his nomination papers but owing to lack of understanding of certain rules of the poll panel, he had failed to annex a properly sworn-in affidavit, though he had filed the affidavit.

Rai contended that as per the poll panel’s regulation it was incumbent upon the returning officer to check his client’s nomination papers and point out to him the errors if he detected them there.

He said the returning officers should have given his client a chance to rectify the errors, if he detected them in the nomination papers, and should not have summarily rejected them.

But the bench refused to entertain the matter on the grounds that the Constitution bars courts from interfering into electoral disputes amid the election process.