Timelines apply even if busy in elections: Delhi HC to AAP’s Somnath Bharti

New Delhi, Mar 10 (PTI) The Delhi High Court on Monday outlined the significance of filing pleadings within prescribed time irrespective of a litigant “being busy in elections” and rejected the plea of AAP’s Somnath Bharti to respond to BJP MP Bansuri Swaraj’s statement in his challenge to her election in the Lok Sabha polls.

When Bharti claimed he was yet to receive Swaraj’s reply to his plea challenging her election on the ground of “corrupt practices”, Justice Anish Dayal said the the statement was served on him and his proxy counsel had sought time to file a response on December 9, 2024.

Bharti lost to Swaraj from the New Delhi Lok Sabha seat in the 2024 polls.

The counsel appearing for Swaraj opposed the request and said the statutory period of 30 days for filing the response had lapsed.

On being asked if he saw the court order, Bharti said he was “busy in election” and the proxy counsel had made a wrong statement.

“Which law says that because a litigant was busy in election, the limitation law will not apply?” the court asked.

The order added, “The court is not inclined to allow the request of the petitioner. The e-mail sent by the respondent on October 19, 2024 and November 22, 2024 have not bounced back. Further, it was the duty of the petitioner to have communicated with the counsel.. The plea to file replication at this stage is rejected.”

While saying a party couldn’t “hide behind” an omission by the proxy counsel, the court observed it was not a “post office” and the parties had to communicate with each other if pleadings were not served on them.

Opposing Bharti’s election petition, Swaraj argued it was filed after the requisite timeline of 45 days without adhering to legal requirements, particularly Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act.

She said no ground was made out in the petition to declare her election null and void as the allegations were a “figment of the imagination of the petitioner” aside from being “extremely vague, ambiguous and lacking in material facts and particulars”.

“In the absence of the same, the petition cannot be said to have been validly instituted, nor can it be said that it discloses a cause of action. As such, the petition merits dismissal,” Swaraj added.

The petition, filed under Sections 80 and 81 of the Act, accused the MP, her election agent, and others of having engaged in corrupt practices.

Bharti alleged on election day, he saw Swaraj’s polling agents distributing pamphlets displaying her ballot number, photo, election symbol and photograph of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, to influence votes for her at polling booths across the constituency.

He also alleged Swaraj spent beyond the permitted expenditure and her entire campaign was religious in nature.