SC Notifies EC On Maneka Gandhi’s Petition Challenging Election Of SP MP Ram Bhual Nishad

The Supreme Court has issued a notice to the Election Commission and other parties involved in the petition filed by former Union Minister and senior BJP leader Maneka Gandhi, challenging the election of Samajwadi Party (SP) MP Ram Bhual Nishad from the Sultanpur constituency in Uttar Pradesh. The court has sought a reply within four weeks.

The petition, which questions Nishad’s election, alleges that he concealed crucial information in his election affidavit. Senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, representing Maneka Gandhi, argued that the right to vote is a constitutional right, and the MP had hidden important details regarding his criminal record.

Also Read: SC To Hear Final Arguments On West Bengal’s OBC Reservation Case

According to Gandhi, Nishad failed to disclose 12 criminal cases against him, listing only 8 in his affidavit. Gandhi has termed this omission as corrupt conduct, seeking the cancellation of his election.

A bench of Justices Suryakant and others is hearing the case. During the hearing, Justice Suryakant suggested that there should be periodic legislative reviews to assess the effectiveness of laws and proposed the creation of an expert body for such evaluations. However, the Supreme Court refused to hear Gandhi’s separate petition challenging a provision of the Representation of the People Act, which imposes a 45-day time limit for filing election petitions. The Court remarked that making laws is outside their purview, leading Gandhi to withdraw the petition regarding this demand.

This case follows Gandhi’s loss in the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, where she was defeated by Nishad with a margin of 43,174 votes. Subsequently, she filed a petition in the Allahabad High Court to contest Nishad’s victory. However, the High Court rejected the petition on August 14, 2024, ruling it was filed beyond the 45-day time limit stipulated by the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The High Court emphasized that Gandhi’s petition violated the time frame outlined under Sections 81 and 86 of the Act.

As the Supreme Court now considers the petition, all eyes are on the developments that may affect the future of Nishad’s election and the broader implications for electoral transparency.