Begin typing your search...

    Madras HC asks ECI to submit reasons for rejecting nomination of Desiya Makkal Sakthi Katchi candidate in Vikravandi bypoll

    The first-division bench of acting Chief Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq heard a petition moved by farmer leader M Rajamanickam of the Desiya Makkal Sakthi Katchi seeking directions to accept his nomination for the election.

    Madras HC asks ECI to submit reasons for rejecting nomination of Desiya Makkal Sakthi Katchi candidate in Vikravandi bypoll
    X

    Madras High Court

    CHENNAI: The Madras High Court on Thursday directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to submit its reasons for rejecting the candidate of the Desiya Makkal Sakthi Katchi from contesting in the upcoming Vikravandi by-election.

    The first-division bench of acting Chief Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq heard a petition moved by farmer leader M Rajamanickam of the Desiya Makkal Sakthi Katchi seeking directions to accept his nomination for the election.

    Advocate ML Ravi, representing the petitioner, submitted that under section 36 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, the presiding officer must reveal the reason to reject an election nomination, whereas in this case, the presiding officer has refused to disclose it.

    The petitioner has submitted the nomination papers, Forms 2B and 26, as per the statutory law, said the counsel. While nominating the candidate, the returning officer made a preliminary examination and gave a check slip as receipt, submitted the counsel.

    However, while scrutinizing the nomination, the presiding officer rejected the petitioner’s nomination, as in the Part A of the affidavit, he had stated his electoral roll constituency as Madurai West while it is stated as Vikravandi in Part B.

    It is not a substantial question for rejection and also not a ground for rejection as specified by the ECI, said the counsel. The affidavit, Form 26, is to be considered as submitted and if any errors were found, they are not a ground for rejection, the counsel submitted.

    Calling it a clear case of discrimination, the advocate also stated that as the presiding officer had accepted other candidates' nominations even thought they had made similar errors. It violates Article 14 of the Constitution, he said.

    After the submissions, the bench posted the matter for hearing on June 28 and directed the ECI to submit the reasons for rejection.

    DTNEXT Bureau
    Next Story