SC refuses to entertain Baghel's plea against nephew's election petition
A Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi dismissed the petition as withdrawn while granting Baghel liberty to approach the High Court-cum-Election Tribunal to raise the issue of maintainability as a preliminary issue.
'If such an application is filed, the High Court is requested to decide it after giving an opportunity of being heard to the other side and before proceeding on merits.
Observations made in the said order shall have no bearing on the application sought to be moved,' the Bench clarified.
Baghel had approached the apex court against the Chhattisgarh High Court's dismissal of his application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of Vijay Baghel's election petition.
Appearing for Baghel, Senior Advocate Vivek Tankha, along with Advocate Sumeer Sodhi, argued that breach of silence period norms does not amount to 'corrupt practice' under election law and hence, the election petition was not maintainable.
However, the Bench suggested that the issue be raised before the High Court-cum-Election Tribunal.
In the 2023 Chhattisgarh Assembly elections, Bhupesh Baghel (Indian National Congress) and Vijay Baghel (Bharatiya Janata Party) contested against each other from the Patan constituency, with Bhupesh Baghel emerging victorious.
Subsequently, Vijay Baghel filed an election petition alleging corrupt practices, including violation of the 48-hour silence period mandated under Section 126 of the Representation of the People Act.
It was claimed that Bhupesh Baghel organised a rally or roadshow during the silence period, where slogans were raised in his favour. This was allegedly video-graphed and photographed by Vijay Baghel's election agent.
In his defence, Bhupesh Baghel contended that the election petition was vague and did not disclose any triable cause of action.
Upon dismissal of his application by the High Court, he approached the Supreme Court, which today declined to interfere. UNI SNG SSP
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
7 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
1984 anti-Sikh riots: CFSL couldn't decipher 40-yr-old illegible FIR in Kanpur, UP tells SC
New Delhi: The Uttar Pradesh government informed the Supreme Court (SC) on Friday that the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) has been unable to decipher the contents of an over 40-year-old illegible FIR linked to the Kanpur 1984 anti-Sikh riots case. The Uttar Pradesh government informed the Supreme Court (SC) on Friday that the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) has been unable to decipher the contents of an over 40-year-old illegible FIR linked to the Kanpur 1984 anti-Sikh riots case. A bench comprising justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi took note of the affidavit filed by the state government and directed the investigating agencies to bring the matter back before the court once they are able to obtain a decipherable copy of the FIR. The court observed that if an expert body like the CFSL could not decode the FIR, no further action could be taken. However, it added that if the agencies were able to procure a clear copy of the document, the court would issue further directions. In its order, the bench noted that the CFSL report revealed the FIR in question was highly fragmented, with only two Hindi words partially legible. 'Except for these two words, the rest of the content is indecipherable,' the report stated. The bench added: 'No effective action in furtherance of the FIR can be taken at this stage. However, as and when the agencies are able to obtain a material copy, the matter shall be brought to the notice of this court without delay.' This FIR is part of a set of nine FIRs being investigated by the special investigation team (SIT), which has been revisiting the cases after 35 years. These cases were initially closed due to a lack of evidence. The Supreme Court was hearing a plea to reopen investigations into the killings of around 130 Sikhs in Kanpur during the 1984 anti-Sikh riots. Previously, the court had directed for the expedited trial of 11 cases related to the riots, in which chargesheets were filed following the reinvestigation of the cases. On Friday, the court was also informed that the Allahabad high court had stayed proceedings in several of these cases, causing delays in the trial process and denying timely justice to the victims' families after more than three decades. The bench expressed concern over the high court's decision to stay proceedings in three of the 11 cases, noting that the trials had begun only after chargesheets were filed by the SIT. 'While we do not wish to impact the right of a suspect or accused to avail their remedy, including quashing of the chargesheet, we request that the high court may take up these matters out of turn for adjudication in accordance with the law,' the bench said. The court emphasised that the 1984 tragedy occurred four decades ago and it was only through the Supreme Court's repeated interventions that the investigations were revived. The bench further pointed out that as time passed, securing key witnesses had become increasingly difficult. Ruchira Goel, standing counsel for the Uttar Pradesh government, informed the court that in four criminal appeals against acquittals in the Allahabad High Court, the delay in proceedings had been condoned. The appeals are now being actively pursued by the advocate general's office. The SC urged the Uttar Pradesh government to assign experienced criminal law officers to assist the high court in the pending criminal appeals. 'We wish to impress upon the advocate general to deploy the best state law officers for this purpose,' the bench stated. The state counsel was directed to ensure the high court receives a copy of the Supreme Court's order, and the matter was adjourned until September 15.
New Indian Express
37 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Madras HC flags procedural lapses in probing caste discrimination complaints
CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has flagged procedural lapses in probing complaints of caste discrimination filed under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and directed the Tamil Nadu DGP to ensure strict compliancy with the law. 'In several matters relating to complaints made under SC/ST (PoA), procedural lapses are being noticed. The second respondent-DGP shall communicate a copy of this order to all SPs who shall ensure strict compliance with the provisions of the SC/ST (PoA) Act and the Rules, particularly Rule 7 relating to rank of the IO (investigating officer) and time-bound filing of final report,' said Justice P Velmurugan in a recent order. Citing a Supreme Court order, he said when a complaint discloses a cognisable offence under the provisions of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, 'no preliminary inquiry is permissible either under this Act or the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)' and the inquiry on the complaint shall be held by an officer in the rank of a DSP and not by an inspector as provided under Section 7 (1) of the Act.
Indian Express
37 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Soldier's death by fellow soldier qualifies as ‘battle casualty', rules Punjab and Haryana High Court
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld an Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) order granting liberalised family pension to Rukmani Devi, the mother of a soldier who died over three decades ago during Operation Rakshak in Jammu and Kashmir. The court dismissed a writ petition by the Union of India challenging the AFT's February 22, 2022, ruling, holding that the soldier's death from friendly fire during an operational deployment qualifies as a 'battle casualty' under the Ministry of Defence's guidelines. Delivering the order on July 16, a division bench of Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal and Justice Deepak Manchanda said: 'It is manifest that a soldier deployed in a military operation, being shot by a fellow soldier, cannot be in any manner denied the benefits, which would be applicable to those soldiers who are killed in action.' The case arose from the death of Rukmani Devi's son, an Indian Army jawan, who was on duty with Operation Rakshak in Jammu and Kashmir when he suffered a fatal gunshot injury on October 21, 1991, fired by another soldier. Army Air Defence Records, through Part-II Order No. 01/BC/05/002 dated August 27, 1992, had categorised his death as a 'battle casualty.' However, the claim for liberalised family pension remained unresolved for decades. In 2018, Rukmani Devi approached the AFT seeking relief. The tribunal directed the government to consider her claim, relying on its own 2017 decision in the case of Harvinder Kaur vs Union of India, where a similar claim was allowed for a widow whose husband had died during Operation Parakram. The Union government appealed, arguing that the cases were not comparable, as Harvinder Kaur's husband had died while the operation was ongoing, whereas Devi's son was killed in 1991. The Centre also objected to the long delay of over 25 years in approaching the tribunal. However, the High Court rejected both arguments. Citing instructions issued by the Ministry of Defence in January 2001, the bench said the benefit of liberalised family pension extends to all armed forces personnel deployed in notified military operations, including those killed by 'acts of violence/attack by extremists, anti-social elements etc' or in other war-like situations. The court reproduced the government's pension categories, noting that the soldier's death fell squarely within Category E of Paragraph 4.1, which covers operational casualties. On the issue of delay, the bench relied on the Supreme Court's 2023 ruling in M.L. Patil vs State of Goa, which held that pension entitlements constitute a 'continuous cause of action.' 'There is no justification at all for denying the arrears of pension…,' the Supreme Court had ruled, and the High Court applied the principle to Devi's case. The bench pointed out that the AFT's 2017 ruling in Harvinder Kaur's case has attained finality, strengthening the claim of similarly placed families. The High Court concluded: 'We do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. The petition stands dismissed accordingly.' With the dismissal of the Union government's petition, the AFT's order stands, ensuring that Rukmani Devi receives the liberalised family pension due to her for her son's death in service.
