The Calcutta High Court on 11th of March set aside the Election Commission's (EC) decision to reject the nomination of Trinamool Congress candidate Ujjwal Kumar from the Joypur constituency in Purulia district and allowed the nomination of Trinamool Congress candidate Ujjwal Kumar on the basis of his Nomination papers.
Brief Facts of Case
Petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of EC who applied as a candidate in the elections going to be held for the Assembly Constituencies, is against the rejection of his candidature.Status of his nomination was declared as rejected citing errors in Kumar's affidavit.
Contentions put forth by Petitioner
Learned senior counsel, by relying on the relevant form, indicated that the said columns, allegedly not filled up by the petitioner, were not applicable at all. The said 2 columns pertained to the third dependant of the electoral candidate, if any.
By placing reliance on Section 36(5) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, learned senior counsel argued that the Returning Officer shall not reject a nomination paper on the ground of any defect which is not of a substantial character
An opportunity of hearing to the petitioner ought to have been given, at least of one day after the date of scrutiny, within the contemplation of Section 36(5) of the 1951 Act, which was not given in the present case
It was argued that the other defect pointed out by the concerned Officer while scrutinizing the nomination form was that the relevant column regarding a declaration as to the address of the petitioner’s Government accommodation and as to whether any dues were payable in respect thereof, was not filled up.
Reasoning & Decision of the Court
Having heard the Counsel for the petitioner, the Court observed that the "defects" pointed out by the concerned Returning Officer were not defects in the true sense of the term in so far as the columns which were not filled up by the petitioner were not applicable to the petitioner at all.
The Court formed this opinion in view of the fact that the petitioner, having disclosed that the petitioner did not have any Government accommodation and the name of the third dependent being merely academic in view of there being no first and second defendant of the petitioner and it was held that:
"It appears from the relevant documents cited by learned senior counsel for the petitioner, that the defects pointed out by the authorities were not filled up by the petitioner were not applicable to the petitioner at all."
Hon'ble Court observed and took into consideration that Right of hearing under Section 36(5) of 1951 was not being given to the petitioner.
Court set aside the order of EC being contrary to law and declared the rejection from nomination due to candidature as invalid and directed the Respondents:
"To permit the petitioner to participate in the oncoming elections by treating the application of nomination for candidature and connected affidavit filed by the petitioner as valid and in accordance with law."
After taking into consideration all the defects highlighted by the Learned Counsels on the behalf of Petitioner Court passed the above stated order in favour of Petitioner.
Case Details
Case : Ujjwal Kumar Vs. Chief Election Commissioner & Ors.
Petitioner :Ujjwal Kumar
Respondent : Chief Election Commissioner & Ors.
Counsels:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kapil Sibal Mr. Debanjan Mandal Mr. Kunal Vajani Mr. Sanjay Basu Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury Mr. Sandip Dasgupta Mr. Saurav Bhagat Mr. Ayan De Mr. Deepan Sarkar Mr. Amit Nag
Bench :Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J
Note: Order is yet to be uploaded on the website.
Picture Source :
