Today, the Delhi High Court rejected a petition challenging the election of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Manish Sisodia from the Patparganj constituency in the 2020 Delhi Assembly elections.

The plea was filed by Pratap Chandra, who had contested against Sisodia as a candidate of the Rashtrawadi Party.

The Court clarified that the registration of an FIR alone does not mean that a criminal case is pending, for the purpose of mandatory disclosure by an election candidate under Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act.

“It is only when charges are framed, or cognizance of the offence is taken by the Court, that the statutory obligation to disclose arises,” Justice Jasmeet Singh said.

Chandra alleged that Manish Sisodia continued election campaigning and displayed poll-related material during the prohibited 48-hour period before the end of voting. He further claimed that Sisodia failed to disclose an FIR registered against him in 2013 under the Prevention of Insult to National Honour Act, 1971, which, according to him, amounted to suppression of material facts.

Rejecting these claims, the Court held that the requirement to disclose criminal antecedents is meant to inform voters about a candidate’s background, enabling them to make an informed choice while exercising their right to vote.

The Court further noted that Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act provides a “limited statutory right to information” for voters, placing a corresponding duty on candidates to disclose such information strictly as required by law.

It added that no formal charge had been framed in the criminal case cited by Chandra, and he also failed to show that Sisodia had knowledge of the FIR in question.

“In the absence of any such pleading or material to demonstrate knowledge on the part of the respondent, the non-disclosure of the FIR cannot be construed as deliberate concealment so as to attract penal or electoral consequences,” the Court said.

The Court also observed that Chandra failed to establish a specific cause of action in his election petition.

Justice Singh noted that the pleadings did not demonstrate any link between the alleged continuation of election campaigning and the election outcome, and therefore failed to show how the result was materially affected under Section 100(1)(d) of the Representation of the People Act.

“The petitioner has just made vague allegations and general pleadings, the petitioner has also failed to file the affidavit in the prescribed pro-forma which requires specific indication of corrupt practices and even the source of information as mandated in Ajmera Shyam (supra) has not been disclosed. These omissions are not mere technicalities but go to the root of the maintainability of the election petition,” the Court said.

“The petitioner's failure to allege any specific violation exercised by the respondent renders the allegation of Section 126 of the RP Act violation insufficient to establish a ground under Section 100(1)(d). The petitioner has essentially confined the allegations in a general sense and that the authorities did not act, without establishing direct culpability or knowledge on the part of the respondent,” it added.

Counsel for Petitioner: Petitioner in person

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Gautam Narayan Sr. Adv. with Mr Rishikesh Kumar, Ms. Asmita, Mr.Mohd Irsad Mr. Karan Sharma, Ms. Sheenupriya, Mr. Rajat Jain, Mr. Abhiram Venugopal Advs

Title: PRATAP CHANDRA v. MR. MANISH SISODIA & ORS