Kerala High Court Dismisses Plea Alleging That BJP Candidate Rajeev Chandrasekhar Filed False Affidavit Along With His Nomination

The Kerala High Court has dismissed a Writ Petition filed by Congress leader Avani Bansal alleging that BJP leader and Union Minister Chandrasekhar has filed a false affidavit along with his nomination papers for contesting the Loksabha Elections 2024 from the Thiruvananthapuram constituency. Rajeev Chandrashekhar is contesting against Congress leader Shashi Tharoor.

It was the grievance of the Petitioner that the candidate had suppressed some of his assets in his affidavit filed along with the nomination papers.

The Bench of Justice VG Arun and Justice S Manu dismissed the Petition stating that the clock cannot be set back once the nomination has been accepted by the Returning Officer and that the only remedy for the Petitioner is to file an election petition.

Senior Advocate George Poonthottam appeared for the Petitioner while Advocate Deepu Lal Mohan appeared for the Election Commission.

"The question as to whether the Returning Officer should have considered the complaint and passed a reasoned order cannot be decided at this point of time and no direction can be issued to the returning officer to communicate the decision on the complaint to the petitioner. As pointed out by the Standing Counsel for the Election Commission, the remedy of the Petitioner, if aggrieved by the acceptance of the affidavit filed by one of the candidates, is to challenge the same in an election petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed", the Court ordered.

The Election Commission submitted that on the complaints about alleged false information furnished by the candidate, the Returning Officer has issued a communication stating that the nomination has been accepted and that the complaint has been forwarded to the Income Tax Department for inquiry. He also submitted that once the nomination has been accepted, properly or improperly, the only remedy is filing an Election Petition.

The Commission further submitted that a Writ Petition cannot be maintained on the ground that the Returning Officer has not furnished reasons for accepting the nomination.

The Senior Advocate on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that his client has a right to know the grounds on which the the objection was rejected. He also said that the Returning Officer has to either accept the objection or reject the same with reason.

The Court responded by saying that the Returning Officer on his own is not able to decide if the objection is correct and hence he has forwarded the same to the Income Tax Department.

The Petitioner Avani Bansal then appeared virtually and made submissions. She submitted that in the communication issued by the Returning Officer, it is merely mentioned that the scrutiny of the papers is completed and not whether the objection has been rejected or accepted.

The Court then pointed out that the website of the EC shows that the nomination has been accepted, as per the Petitioner's pleading. The Petitioner then submitted that the Returning Officer may be directed to furnish the reasons within 24 hours, which can then be challenged in an Election Petition.

The Court then proceeded to pass the order dismissing the Writ Petition.

Cause Title: Avani Bansal v. Election Commission of India (WP(C) 16410/ 2024)