The Election Commission of India (ECI) on Tuesday fixed July 23 for hearing the final arguments in the matter of disqualification of 20 Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLAs.
In a 70-page order, the poll body has, however, dismissed the application for the cross-examination of the petitioner moved by the AAP MLAs.
"There is no occasion and need for cross-examination of the petitioner as he is not a witness in the present proceedings and the respondents have failed to make out a case for calling any witness," the order read.
The Commission has further stated that the factual matrix which the poll body and High Court has taken cognisance of is drawn on the basis of information which it recieved from the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNTCD).
"Moreover, in order to follow, Principles of Natural Justice in letter and spirit, multiple opportunities were accorded to the Respondents to offer their comments on these documents. After receipt of these documents the Respondents did not deny or challenge any single page from the 2500 pages of documents received from GNCTD," the order said.
The ECI's order also said that the prayer by AAP MLAs to call GNCTD Officers for proving government records and documents which GNCTD has submitted to the Commission, is "nothing but tactics employed to drag and delay this matter".
The order also mentions the observation of the Delhi High Court, stating that the proceedings before the commission would continue from the stage the error and lapse occurred.
In January this year, the EC had recommended the disqualification of 20 AAP MLAs - Alka Lamba, Adarsh Shastri, Sanjeev Jha, Rajesh Gupta, Kailash Gahlot, Vijendra Garg, Praveen Kumar, Sharad Kumar, Madan Lal, Shiv Charan Goyal, Sarita Singh, Naresh Yadav, Rajesh Rishi, Anil Kumar, Som Dutt, Avtar Singh, Sukhvir Singh Dala, Manoj Kumar, Nitin Tyagi and Jarnail Singh.
The move resulted in a reduction of the AAP's strength in the 70-member Delhi Assembly from 66 to 46.
The AAP MLAs, who were appointed parliamentary secretaries, had subsequently challenged their disqualification on grounds of holding office-of-profit.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
