HC dismisses Cong leader Nirupam's 2014 LS poll plea against BJP MP

Image
Press Trust of India Mumbai
Last Updated : Nov 30 2018 | 4:50 PM IST

The Bombay High Court Friday dismissed a petition filed by Mumbai Congress chief Sanjay Nirupam challenging the election of BJP's Gopal Shetty in the 2014 Lok Sabha elections.

Nirupam had sought for Shetty's election from Mumbai North Parliamentary constituency in the 16th Lok Sabha elections held on November 24, 2014 to be declared null and void.

Nirupam had claimed that Shetty had not disclosed information regarding a property owned by the latter and his wife in suburban Borivli in the nomination form and the affidavits.

Shetty had opposed the petition, and said provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 state only about disclosure of criminal cases, and that there is no provision in respect to disclosure of properties or consequences of the failure to disclose the same.

Shetty further claimed that the property in question was no more under his ownership as all the flats in the said building had been sold in 2010 itself.

Justice Mridula Bhatkar on Friday delivered a judgment in the petition and accepted Shetty's argument.

"I am of the view that in this petition, considering the facts and nature of the property, non-mentioning the said property in the nomination form and in the affidavit as an asset is not a substantive defect," the court said.

"In the present case, there is no false declaration but there is elimination of details of one property, that is non-disclosure of one property," Justice Bhatkar said.

The court noted that section 33A of the Act makes it obligatory for candidates to disclose his or her criminal record, pending cases and if he or she has been convicted and the sentence therein.

"There is no such specific provision like section 33A in respect of disclosure of assets. It is mandatory on the part of the candidate to disclose the property and assets as per Form 96 prescribed under the Act," the order said.

However, there are no specific directions or special provisions like section 33A of the Act, the HC stated while dismissing the petition.

Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content

*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

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

More From This Section

First Published: Nov 30 2018 | 4:50 PM IST

Next Story