'Election Petition Takes 5 Yrs Only When Ruling Party Involved': MP High Court On State's Alleged Refusal To Send Info On Minister To ECI
In a petition alleging State's inaction in providing information to Election Commission on a complaint claiming suppression of properties by a sitting state minister in his 2023 election nominations, the Madhya Pradesh High Court orally cautioned the State against justifying delay by claiming that election petitions usually take 5 years to be decided.
The court orally remarked that election petition take 5 years, when ruling party is involved and only five months when not.
The petitioner, Rajkumar Singh, had filed a writ petition alleging that respondent 5 Govind Singh Rajput–a BJP MLA and cabinet minister in state government, had concealed six properties while filing his nomination form 26, thereby violating Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act.
The petitioner contended that he had filed a complaint with the ECI, which took cognizance of the complaint and referred it to the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO). Thereafter, the CEO appointed the local SDO and Collector to look into the facts.
The petitioner claimed that no action was taken due to Rajput's position being minister of the State. He claimed that the subsequently, the SDO refused to comply with the recommendations of the ECI and replied that since the election process was over, the authority granted to the officers was diluted.
During the hearing on Thursday (September 25) the court sought a status report from the counsel for the State regarding compliance with the orders of the ECI to provide necessary information. To which, the counsel for the State submitted that all information was communicated internally to the ECI, and it was upon the ECI to take a decision on the same.
However, the court questioned as to what decision the ECI would take, noting that the ECI has been sending reminders to the State for the same. The counsel, however, argued that the decision not to share information was a firm stand they took on the matter, remarking that the ECI may not agree with it.
The counsel for the State tried to reassure the court that they would assist the ECI. Unconvinced, the court questioned, "After how many letters will you assist them?". The counsel then claimed that the complaint was filed in March, and documents by the State were sent within five months in July.
"In March they made a complaint...In July we sent a report...Its only been five months. In Representation of Peoples Act, there is a provision that election petitions should be decided in six months. They are decided in five years," State's counsel argued.
To this, the bench of Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf orally remarked;
"Don't take such a stand that because election petitions take 5 years. We know why they take five years...because there is a ruling party. If its a losing party, if its not a party in power, it will be decided in five months".
The counsel for the State thereafter submitted that ECI has not taken a final decision and the present petition is premature. To which the bench noted that the state was asked for certain documents, which they were obliged to send them, but had refused to send.
"There is another letter which has been sent. So we will certainly be obliged to...," the counsel said. The bench said, "So we will record your statement that you will be sending information within whatever time...".
Meanwhile the senior advocate Meenakshi Arora appearing for Rajput submitted that let the ECI inform the court what it is that they were doing and what was the status as of now.
The court further orally noted that this matter was not an election petition but rather a case alleging a false affidavit, upon which the ECI was looking into it.
"If the state government had said that we have sent the information, then its for the ECI...there would be nothing for us to do. We are not going to transgress into the jurisdiction of the Election Commission. The only thing is here the state is not co-operating".
To this, the Counsel for State claimed, "We are part of the Election Commission. I am standing in the capacity of उप जिला निर्वाचन अधिकारी (Deputy District Electoral Officer/ Returning Officer ). It is not a case that it is state versus election commission, we are part of it, this is why I am saying it is an internal communication".
After recording the submission of the parties, the court in its order dictated:
"Learned counsel appearing for Election Commission of India raises an objection at pre-notice stage with regard to maintainability of the present petition and prays for time to file certain documents. Similar request is made by learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 & 4. Let needful be done within two weeks".
The case was listed for October 9.
Case Title: Rajkumar Singh v Election Commission of India (WP-36367-2025)
For Petitioner: Senior Advocates Devadatt Kamat and Sanjay K Agrawal with Advocates Mukesh Kumar, Akash Sharma, Naveen Dubey and Tushar K. Namdeo
For ECI: Advocates Siddharth Sharma, Mayank Upadhyaya and Devendra Prajapati
For State Government: Additional Advocate General Abhijeet Awasthi
For Respondent no 5: Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora with Advocate Vivek Ranjan Pandey