New Delhi
A day after the nomination of Rajya Sabha candidate Meenakshi Natrajan was rejected by the returning officer in Madhya Pradesh’s Bhopal, the Congress on Wednesday saying that the decision of the returning officer as legally untenable saying it is a complete misreading of the law.
A delegation of Congress met Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners at the Nirvachan Sadan. The delegation comprised of Congress General Secretaries Jairam Ramesh, KC Venugopal, Randeep Singh Surjewala, Deepak Dasmunshi, senior leaders Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Vivek Tankha.
After meeting the CEC and other Election Commissioners, Singhvi said, “We had a detailed representation before the Election Commission. We told them, and we demonstrated according to us, beyond doubt and beyond any matter of controversy, that the RO has passed a perverse order.”
Singhvi, who is a senior Advocate said that the Election Commission’s own law, the Representation of the People Act, has Section 33A, which says that “disclosure is required only in those cases where the punishment is more than two years, and above all, only in those cases where charges have been framed”.
“The process of framing charges is a judicial process. A judge frames charges,” he explained.
He argued that now, as any kindergarten or first-year law student knows, the first step is a private complaint.
That private complaint may be baseless and may have no legs to stand on. The second stage is the taking of cognizance by the magistrate, which is a judicial and independent process, he said.
Singhvi said: “Natarajan only received a notice to appear before the court and explain why cognizance should not be taken. That means the notice she received was before any cognizance was taken.”
“Without cognizance, no criminal case exists in the eyes of the law. There is no criminal case merely because I allege something against somebody else without cognizance being taken,” he stressed.
He also said: “They have rejected Natarajan’s nomination despite the non-existence of even cognizance, which means there was no criminal case that she could have disclosed. Whereas Section 33A, says that after cognizance is taken, there will be an investigation. After the investigation, there will be a charge sheet.”
He also asserted that the RO’s order uses the word “sangyan”, which means cognizance.
“There was no cognizance taken,” he said.
He then said that ultimately, we also pointed out to the Election Commission that it has a huge reservoir of power under Article 324.
“It is a constitutional power, an untrammable power and an inherent power. It is the power to do justice and the power to right wrongs. We hope and trust that the Election Commission will realize that this creates a very bad, distorted, non-level playing field. A non-level playing field strikes at the heart of democracy. A violation of that strikes further at the heart of the basic structure of the Constitution,” he said.
“Therefore, we have requested them for an immediate decision. We have come on the day of withdrawal. There is sufficient time. This is a completely egregious, blatant, patently unlawful order, without any basis in law, and it should be set aside immediately. That is our request,” Singhvi, who is also a Rajya Sabha member said.
He also cited precedents from Haryana and Gujarat, where the Election Commission intervened in cases involving allegedly wrongful rejection of nomination papers.
He also said that as Wednesday is the final date for the withdrawal of nominations, thus there is ample time for administrative intervention.
“We have submitted all relevant legal notes, statutory citations, and precedents to the Commission. We trust that the Election Commission of India will recognise the gravity of this unlawful order and exercise its constitutional authority to set it aside immediately,” he added.
Meanwhile, Venugopal said the party had raised its concerns with the poll panel and expressed hope for prompt examination of the issue.
“They told that they will look into it,” Venugopal said.
On Tuesday evening, the Returning Officer had rejected the nomination of Natrajan for the Rajya Sabha in regard to a notice issued by a court in Telangana.
The decision was taken following a complaint was submitted by the BJP candidate Mahesh Kewat, contesting the third Rajya Sabha seat, to the Returning Officer alleging that Natarajan deliberately hid information about a case filed against her in Telangana.
Polling for the Rajya Sabha biennial elections is scheduled for June 18.