The Delhi High Court has refused to reject a petition challenging the election of AAP MLA Durgesh Pathak in the 2022 assembly bypolls. The petition has challenged Pathak's election as a lawmaker from the Rajinder Nagar Assembly constituency here in the June 2022 bypolls on the grounds of indulging in corrupt practices. Pathak was declared as a winner from Rajinder Nagar constituency by defeating his nearest rival by a margin of 11,468 votes. The high court listed the election petition before roster bench on July 22 for further proceedings.
Justice Yashwant Varma, in a 103-page order passed on Monday, dismissed the application of Pathak seeking rejection of the election petition filed against him, saying there was no justification to do so at this stage.
“ The Court is also conscious of the indubitable position in law that a petition cannot be rejected in part. Consequently, although we have found in favor of the applicant insofar as the office of profit, disclosure of ITR and overestimation of shareholding questions are concerned, we, in light of what has been noted in the context of Form 26, the question of whether a disclosure with respect to a FIR is required in law, the meaning to be ascribed to the expression ?pending criminal case? are issues which are clearly triable. We consequently find no justification to reject the election petition at this stage and on that score,” Justice Verma said in the order.
The high court noted that "broad and sweeping allegations" have been made by Tewari alleging corrupt practice, undue influence and improper acceptance of a nomination.
"It becomes evident and apparent that there is a manifest failure on the part of the election petitioner having asserted that the improper acceptance of the nomination or a corrupt practice or non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution, Act, Rules or Orders made thereunder had materially affected the results of the election," it said. The court, however, said it was conscious of the indubitable position in law that a petition cannot be rejected in part.
“In fact, and as was pointed out earlier, neither side had even brought those amendments to the notice of the Court. Much of the material which has been noticed in the preceding paragraphs has been independently collated by the Court and the ends of justice would thus warrant parties being placed on due notice lest prejudice be caused to either side,” reads the order.
