The Supreme Court has issued a notice to the respondents and requested a reply on the petition filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and MLA Durgesh Pathak. Pathak filed this petition to contest a Delhi High Court decision that dismissed his plea concerning the legitimacy of his 2022 election to the Rajendra Nagar assembly seat.
High Court’s Decision On Pathak’s Election Opposed On Grounds Of Corruption
The controversy began when a petition challenged Pathak’s election on corruption allegations, arguing that his 2022 victory – secured by a margin of 11,468 votes – tainted. The Delhi High Court dismissed this challenge, noting legal limitations in partially rejecting petitions and asserting that specific claims raised against Pathak deserved further consideration. Notably, the court acknowledged concerns related to the filing of an FIR against Pathak by his opponent concerning alleged inconsistencies in his Form 26 disclosures.
Allegations: Criminal Background, Office Of Profit, & Financial Discrepancies
Petitioner Rajan Tiwari, a Rajendra Nagar voter, opposed Pathak’s election on four key grounds. First, he alleged that Pathak failed to disclose his criminal background while submitting his nomination.
Also Read: Supreme Court Issues Notice To Remo D’Souza, Denies Stay On Fraud Case
Second, he claim Pathak held an office of profit up until the day his nomination was scrutinize. Third, Tiwari argued that Pathak concealed facts in his 2019–2020 income tax returns. Finally, he alleged that Pathak made false claims about private company shares in filings to the Election Commission.
Pathak Argues Petition Against Him Is Unmaintainable
In his Supreme Court petition, Pathak contends that the petition against him, filed under section 7(11)(A) of the Civil Procedure Code, lacks legal grounds and should be dismissed. He disputes the validity of Tiwari’s claims, arguing that the accusations hold no merit in the context of election law.
The Supreme Court has scheduled further hearings in this case, as Pathak seeks to clear his name and uphold the legitimacy of his election victory. With this case drawing national attention, it raises important questions about transparency and accountability for elected officials.
