|  |  | 

India Top Headlines

SC reserves order on Tej Bahadur’s argument against the rejection of the nomination document to dispute against the prime minister | India News


NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to adjourn the hearing on the allegation of the fired BSF Jawan Tej Bahadur against the rejection of his nomination papers to challenge the 2019 Lok Sabha polls against Prime Minister Narendra Modi of the constituency from Varanasi, saying that this is “too important a matter”.
The high court reserved the order on Bahadur’s statement challenging the Allahabad High Court verdict that had dismissed his election petition against the election panel’s decision to reject his nomination papers.
Whether your nomination was correctly or incorrectly rejected by the Electoral Commission (EC) depends on your eligibility, the court said.
“Why should we give him the freedom to postpone the session? You are abusing the legal process. You argue, ”a bank headed by the Chief Justice, SA Bobde, told Bahadur’s lawyer.
After Bahadur’s lawyer asked for a postponement or did not take up the matter, the court said: “We cannot do it. This is too important a matter. The defendant is the Prime Minister of India. We have read this matter. You discuss your matter ”.
The court, which also includes judges AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian, said that the postponement has dragged on for months in this case and that the court would not give more time.
Attorney Pradeep Kumar Yadav, who appeared for Bahadur, argued that the petitioner had previously submitted his nomination as an independent candidate and then as a candidate for the Samajwadi Party from the Varanasi constituency.
The returning officer on May 1 last year had rejected the nomination papers of Bahadur, a Samajwadi Party candidate, who was fired from BSF in 2017 after he posted a video online complaining about the quality of the food being served. serve the troops.
While he rejected Bahadur’s nomination documents, the returned official had observed that “the nomination document is not accompanied by a certificate issued in the manner prescribed by the Electoral Commission to the effect that he has not been fired for corruption or disloyalty. to the State “.
Earlier on Wednesday, the court told Bahadur’s lawyer: “You are supposed to attach the certificate that you (Bahadur) were not fired from service. You have not done it. Tell us when your nomination was rejected, if you were a party candidate ”.
When Yadav said that Bahadur did not have enough time to present the certificate, the court said: “Whether your nomination was rejected correctly or incorrectly depends on your eligibility.”
Bahadur’s attorney argued that a notice was issued on April 30 and his nomination was rejected on May 2.
Referring to the higher court’s verdict, he stated that Bahadur’s nomination was rejected for “reasons beyond his control.”
When he objected to the appearance of Chief Defender Harish Salve, who was representing Modi in the matter, the court said: “Every day we hear from defenders at the intake stage. He (the defendant) is the Prime Minister of India. We have read the matter that discusses your matter. ”
Salve said: “This man presents two nomination papers in which in one he says that he was fired and in another he says that he was not fired. He didn’t ask for time. The law says that if he asks for time, he should have given him a time that does not exceed two days. ”
Salve said Bahadur had not asked for time and therefore the scrutineer made the decision.
When Bahadur’s lawyer urged the court to ignore the matter so that he could find out from the higher court’s order, the court said: “We will not give you a postponement or ignore it. This matter lasts a long time. Find out now. We will bear it. ”
“Where have you argued that you asked for time to deliver the certificate but it was not granted?” The court asked the petitioner’s lawyer, adding: “Show us the evidence that you have asked for time. On what evidence was your argument in the superior court based? ”.
When Bahadur’s lawyer referred to the teller’s order, the court said: “We don’t want this order. We want your request for time. We cannot postpone this matter ”.
The petitioner’s attorney said that after Bahadur asked for time, the counting officer approved the order.
The court, after hearing the submissions, reserved its order in the matter.
“In a nutshell, the factual matrix of the case is that, following the instructions of the returning official, the appellant’s nomination to the election was wrongly rejected for not running in the prescribed manner and rejected the appellant’s nomination / candidacy for the election of the 17th Lok Sabha of the 77th parliamentary constituency (Varanasi), UP, to be held in April-May 2019 ”, Bahadur said in his guilty plea.
Bahadur said that he has requested a declaration that the election of the defendant (Narendra Modi) be declared void and that the order approved by the counting officer dated May 1, 2019, which rejects his nomination, be annulled.
He said that the higher court had not appreciated that the appellant’s appointment letter had been rejected by the District Elections Officer by going against the intention of the statutory provisions and by misusing the provisions mentioned in sections 9 and 33 (3) of the Representation. of the People’s Law, 1951.
On May 9 last year, the superior court had rejected his plea whereby he had challenged EC’s decision to reject his nomination papers for the Varanasi Lok Sabha seat.
The higher court had said it finds no reason to consider the statement.

Original source