On Thursday, two election petitions were filed before the Delhi high court challenging the victory of Delhi Chief Minister, Arvind Kejriwal and Deputy CM, Manish Sisodia in the recently held assembly elections. Pratap Chandra, the petitioner in both the election petitions had contested the polls against Kejriwal as well as Sisodia in their respective constituencies. It was alleged by the petitioner that Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia violated poll campaign norms during the elections.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice V Kameswar Rao yesterday issued notice to Sisodia in the petition concerning his election.
No order was passed by Justice Mukta Gupta in the petition concerned with the election of Kejriwal and deferred the hearing to allow the petitioner to make corrections of some typographical errors in the plea.
The Petitioner has prayed for setting aside the elections held in the two constituencies- New Delhi and Patparganj, on the ground that the parties carried out continued advertisement till the last stage of the election and thus vitiated the entire process of election.
“..as per section 126 of The R P Act 1951 no one is permitted to get undue advantage by way of any kind of Election Matter advertisement for making appeals to the voters to cast their votes in their favour before the 48 hours of the conclusion of the polling day but the high handed candidates of the political parties putting their election matter advertisement in various Hoarding, Bus Shelter and Public Utility Display Board in which they have made appeals in favour of party as well as Symbol on 08.02.2020..” The Petition stated.
The petitioner contended that, despite his raising objections before the authorities of the election commission, the election advertisements were allowed to be displayed.
“Because of the arbitrary and negligent act of the respondents (MCMC and RO), the petitioner (Chandra) has suffered a lot and the defaulting parties continued to enjoy election matter advertisement by violating the section 126 of the Act and the petitioner could do nothing,” the petitions said.
The Petitioner, therefore, has sought an order for conducting fresh bye-elections in both the constituencies on the complete expense of the responsible political party and candidate.