Guj minister apologises to HC over pleas in SC against judge

State minister Bhupendrasinh Chudasama on Monday apologised to the Gujarat High Court for filing pleas in the Supreme Court questioning the credibility of a high court judge in a trial related to an election petition questioning his victory in the 2017 assembly polls.

Deposing as a witness in the election petition filed by Ashwin Rathod, a Congress candidate from Dholka Assembly constituency who lost to the minister by a thin margin of 327 votes, Chudasamaalso raised objection to re-verification of postal ballots as demanded by the petitioner.

During his cross-examination by petitioner's lawyer Percy Kavina, the minister, who also holds law portfolio, said he "expressed his remorse and apologised" for moving three special leave petitions in the apex court in connection with the election petitions.

 

"I feel ashamed of the content of the SLPs (filed in Supreme Court), and I am sorry about it," he told the court.

Chudasama had moved three petitions in the apex court questioning impartiality of high court Justice Paresh Upadhyay, saying the court was not conducting a fair trial.

He had also challenged the maintainability of Rathod's petition in the Supreme Court, which was rejected.

Justice Paresh Upadhyay, who was hearing the case, suggested that his apology was "not required", but the minister insisted, saying that he had even instructed his lawyer to withdraw the said petitions.

Chudasama's lawyer, Nirupam Nanavati, said he is embarrassed about the petition and is expressing his apology voluntarily.

Rathod's lawyer said on Monday the two petitions were withdrawn only after the SC bench seemed disinclined to admit them.

Chudasama also said the defeat margin of 327 votes is not "thin", claiming that a defeat by one vote in assembly elections and seven votes in Lok Sabha polls will be considered a narrow margin.

Chudasama claimed there was no need for reverification of postal ballots questioned by the petitioner, as counting was conducted in presence of the officers concerned, and bore the signature of the poll observer.

He said this in reply to the petitioner's lawyer who asked what was his take on the reverification of postal ballots in question.

The minister also told the court that the petitioner had not asked for recounting after the process was over.

"Entire process took place as per the guidelines of the Election Commission, and hence there is no question of allowing the petition," he said.

Rathod, in his petition, has sought that polls to Dholka constituency be declared void on the ground that unfair means were adopted.

The then returning officer Dhaval Jani had admitted before the court that he did not follow certain instructions of the Election Commission during the counting of votes.

Since the victory margin was less than postal ballots rejected (429), he would have carried out re-verification as per the EC's guidelines, Jani had told court.

Rathod said in his petition that counting of these ballots could have turned the result in his favour.