An Assembly constituency in Arunachal Pradesh faces a strange situation. It has no one to represent it after the Supreme Court recently set aside the election of the Congress MlA Kameng Dolo, who was elected unopposed from the seat in the 2014 State elections.
Although Dolo claimed that his rival BJP candidate Atum Welly had withdrawn his nomination, the latter challenged his election before the Gauhati High Court on the ground that his signature was forged to fraudulently secure the withdrawal. This paved way for Dolo's election, who later went on to become the Deputy Chief Minister in 2016 when Kalikho Pul became the Chief Minister in the State.
The Gauhati High Court by its order of February 8 this year declared the election of Dolo from 12th Parkke Kesang Assembly seat as void. Although the Supreme Court had initially stayed the HC order, on May 9, the apex court finally decided to go with the HC decision in declaring the election as void. Usually, when an election petition is decided against the winning candidate, the rival naturally assumes the vacant post. But in the present case, since Dolo was elected unopposed, fresh election need to be held to fill the vacancy.
Setting aside the election of Dolo that took place on March 15, 2014, the apex court observed that "illegal acceptance" of withdrawal of candidature for election has the potentiality to destroy the base of democracy and if this was done in transgression of the statutory provision, it would tantamount to "sacrilege of democracy".
"We are disposed to think so, when in transgression of the statutory provision, a candidate's candidature is allowed to be withdrawn, it will tantamount to sacrilege of democracy. That is why mandate of Section 37 of the (RP) Act (relating to withdrawal of candidature) has been so carefully worded," said a bench of Justices Dipak Misra and AM Khanwilkar.
"The legislature has taken pains to provide safeguards, since illegal acceptance of withdrawal has the potentiality to destroy the base of democracy and corrode its primary roots," the apex court said, adding, "there is no merit in this appeal and the same stands dismissed".
In his plea before the HC, Welly had contended that the provisions of Section 37 of the RP Act was complied with as prescribed format for withdrawal of candidature had not been delivered by him, his proposer or his poll agent.
"It is because the intention of Parliament is that due care and caution has to be taken in letter and spirit so that no confusion is created. The issue of alert and careful exercise gains more significance when there are two candidates and that too from two national parties," the apex court said.