The Delhi High Court has recently issued a notice in response to a petition challenging the election of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Atishi Marlena from the Kalkaji constituency during the recent Assembly elections. The petitioners, Kamaljit Singh Duggal and Ayush Rana, both voters in the Kalkaji constituency, have alleged that Atishi engaged in corrupt practices that influenced the election outcome.
Atishi emerged victorious in the election, securing 52,154 votes and defeating Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) candidate Ramesh Bidhuri by a margin of 3,521 votes. However, the petitioners contend that her victory was tainted by unlawful activities that warrant judicial scrutiny.
One of the primary allegations centers around an incident that purportedly occurred a day before the polling. According to the petition, close associates of Atishi were apprehended with ₹5 lakh in cash. These individuals were allegedly acting under Atishi's directives to bribe voters in an attempt to secure votes in her favor. The petitioners argue that this constitutes the corrupt practice of "bribery" as defined under Section 123(1)(A) of the Representation of People Act, 1951.
In addition to the bribery allegations, the petition accuses Atishi and her party workers of disseminating fabricated videos containing false statements. These videos allegedly portrayed individuals engaging in hooliganism in the Kalkaji area under the instructions of BJP candidate Ramesh Bidhuri. The petition further claims that female AAP workers later confessed that these videos were produced under Atishi's instructions to tarnish the image of the BJP and prejudice Bidhuri's electoral prospects.
Moreover, the petitioners assert that Atishi misused her official position to gain an unfair advantage over other candidates contesting from the Kalkaji constituency. They allege that she leveraged her status to subsidize certain initiatives, thereby influencing voters unduly.
In light of these allegations, Justice Jyoti Singh of the Delhi High Court has sought responses from Atishi, the Election Commission of India (ECI), the Returning Officer, and the Delhi Police. The court has scheduled the next hearing for July. Additionally, the court has directed the ECI, the Returning Officer, and the Delhi Police to preserve all records pertaining to the elections in the Kalkaji constituency, the results of which were declared on February 9. The court also noted that the ECI and the Returning Officer could file applications for modification of this order if necessary.
During the proceedings, representatives for the Returning Officer and the ECI argued that, according to established legal precedents, neither the ECI nor the Returning Officer should be made parties in an election petition. The court acknowledged this position and indicated that the ECI and the Returning Officer could present this argument in their formal replies.
The outcome of this case could have significant implications for electoral practices and the enforcement of legal provisions designed to ensure free and fair elections. The court's decision to entertain the petition underscores the judiciary's role in upholding the integrity of the electoral process. As the case progresses, it will be closely watched by political observers and the public alike, given its potential impact on political accountability and the conduct of elections in the region.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.