Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) exercised its franchise against joining hands with the Taksalis over Narinder Singh Shergill’s candidature from Sri Anandpur Sahib constituency. And now, his very nomination has become an issue of legal scrutiny.
Six months after AAP declared Shergill’s name from Sri Anandpur Sahib, his candidature is in a tight spot for not filing proper details of expenditures incurred by him during 2017 Punjab assembly elections he contested from Mohali constituency.
Due to the same reasons, the Election Commission of India has debarred him from contesting any election.
Available information suggests that the ECI has taken the decision in this regard only a few months ago.
Challenging the same, Shergill had filed an appeal before the Commission, in which the Deputy Election Commissioner, after giving a hearing on April 25, rejected his appeal.
As the state election panel was scrutinising the nomination papers filed by the candidates, Shergill challenged the Commission’s decision in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which has directed the poll panel to “provisionally scrutinize” Shergill’s nomination papers.
The High Court has made it clear that the process would be subject to outcome of the petition, while issuing the notice of motion to the ECI and another fixing May 2 as the next date of hearing in the matter.
The Court has directed the concerned to “verify the factual position in view of the averments made in the petition”.
“The court has issued a notice of motion, and after that the Ropar Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Returning Officer Sumeet Jarangal has adjourned the decision on scrutiny till 11 am of May 2, which is the last date of withdrawal of nominations,” a senior election commission official, who did not wish to be named, told The Pioneer.
Till the filing of this report, the scrutiny reports of the nominations for Sri Anandpur Sahib and Ludhiana constituencies have not been received by the Commission.
Shergill, through his lawyers, has argued that he had furnished accounts to the District Election Officer, which were duly scrutinized, and the officer even agreed with the amount shown by the candidate against all items of expenditure, as required.