A Madhya Pradesh High School Division Bench held in a single case that the ‘replacement candidate’ fielded by the Congress party cannot be considered as an ‘approved candidate’ as the initially approved candidate withdrew from the Assembly. He refused to intervene in the government’s order. 2024 Sabah State Elections.
The Single Bench held that if an alternate candidate’s form is signed by only one proposer, the alternate candidate’s form may be rejected if the ‘approved candidate’ form is accepted. I have decided.
The Division Bench of the High Court has ruled that in order for an alternate candidate to be eligible, he or she must submit Part II of the recommendation signed by 10 proposers or submit a separate nomination as an independent candidate. Upheld the Single Judge Bench’s finding that there was. If an initially “approved” candidate declines, he or she will be considered as an “approved candidate” at a later point.
Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Gajendra Singh The nomination of an “alternative candidate” by Moti Singh of the Indian National Congress party was already rejected on April 25, 2024, and he has never raised any objection to such rejection of nomination. It concluded that no problems would arise with such a candidate. He later contests the Indore elections as the party’s ‘official candidate’.
Based on various precedents, the state’s lawyers had argued that the intervention of the High Court by accepting Section 226 petitions in matters such as the present case was undesirable. The lawyer added that issuing directions after the electoral process has begun has the effect of interpreting, interfering with or prolonging the electoral process. To avoid such a situation, the lawyers confirmed to the court that aggrieved candidates can avail themselves of remedies only after the election formalities are completed by filing an election application.
“…having regard to the particular facts and circumstances of this case, and in the light of the principles laid down in the case, Election Commission of India (mentioned above) and Manda Jagannath (supra), we find persuasive force in the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the accused. Based on the above facts, when the impugned order is tested on the anvil, we do not perceive any fault therein…”, The Bench, sitting on the Indore bench, surmised so after hearing both sides.
It is noteworthy here that respondent No. 4, Dr. Akshay Bam, who was nominated by the Congress Party as an ‘approved candidate’, on April 29, 2024, a few days after accepting the nomination as a ‘candidate’. He withdrew from the contest. Approved Candidate”. Mr. Moti Singh then submitted a representation to the electoral body to instead declare him as an “approved candidate” and allocate the INC’s official symbol accordingly, but this was not taken into account. As a result, Moti Singh filed a suit in the High Court.
According to the appellant, only independent candidates are required to obtain the signatures of the 10 proposers, and not candidates like him who were initially nominated by the INC as “alternative candidates.” According to Form-B, an “alternate candidate” can replace the “approved” candidate. i) the nomination of the “approved” candidate is rejected upon scrutiny, and ii) the “approved” candidate himself withdraws from the contest. In the present case, the petition was filed as respondent No. 4 withdrew his candidature in the second stage and the alternate candidate became eligible.
Counsel for the appellant sought to establish, by reference to section 33(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1951, that a candidate representing a political party may submit a nomination form with only one signature of the elector of the constituency . Therefore, the reinstated police officer refused the nomination without giving at least one day’s time as prescribed in the proviso to subsection (5) of Article 36 to obtain the signatures of 10 persons as non-approved candidates. It was argued that there was a mistake.
Counsel for the Election Commission, Election Officer and Returning Officer of Indore constituency also argued that the appellant’s contention that the statutory provisions have the effect of overriding the Handbook 2023 and the Electoral Symbols Ordinance, 1968 is that these “enforcement instructions” He reiterated that they cannot be ignored if they are not followed. ” is not particularly objected to by the appellant.
Earlier, the counsel for accused No. 4 had filed a number of submissions before the single judge bench. According to the lawyer, Articles 6.10.3(ii) and 7 of the 2023 Returning Officers Handbook provide that only if the party’s principal approved candidate’s nomination form is rejected, the alternate candidate will be the next candidate. This suggests that it will be handled. But only if the party has already hinted at his name as an “alternative” candidate.
Following the withdrawal of the initially “approved” candidate, the nomination document of the alternate candidate must be scrutinized and accepted as an independent candidate in order to qualify for the second stage as a party-approved candidate. and should remain a candidate. The candidate added:
For the appellant: Mr. Vibhoor Khandelwal, Advocate, Shri Jaish Gurnani, Advocate.
For respondents 1-3: Mini Ravindran, Advocate
Case title: Moti Singh v. Election Commission of India (through the Chief Election Commissioner and Chief Election Commissioner)
Case number: Writ Appeal No. 1039 of 2024
Quote: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 72
Click here to read/download order
