Delhi HC dismisses plea challenging election of BJP leader Dr Harsh Vardhan as MP

The Delhi High Court recently dismissed an Election Petition challenging the election of BJP leader Dr Harsh Vardhan as a Lok Sabha Member from New Delhi’s Chandni Chowk constituency for lack of any cause of action..“In the present case, barring making the allegation regarding the valuation of the property and trying to raise suspicion on the income of the spouse declared by the respondent (Dr Harsh Vardhan), the petition is lacking any other material particulars to show as to how the same, in any manner, affected the outcome of the election in question.”, the Court said..The Judgement was pronounced by a Single Judge Bench of Justice Navin Chawla in a plea by one Arun Kumar who claimed to be a voter registered in the Chandni Chowk constituency..It was the petitioner’s grievance that Dr Harsh Vardhan indulged in corrupt practice in terms of Section 123 of the Representation of Peoples Act by failing to disclose the true value of his wife’s residential flat in Dwarka, New Delhi while filing his nomination papers. It was claimed that the actual cost of the flat was around Rs. 70 lakh while Dr Harsh Vardhan stated the cost to be around Rs. 62 lakh in his nomination paper..The petitioner had also asserted that as per the affidavit filed by 2014, Harsh Vardhan’s wife had never filed an Income Tax Return, however, in 2019 affidavit, it was stated that she filed Income Tax Return in the intervening period and also purchased the Dwarka property..The petitioner had thus contended that the non-disclosure of the true worth of the assets of Dr Harsh Vardhan’s wife unduly influenced the voters and impinged the process of free and fair elections..The Court noted that it was not in dispute that the disclosure of the asset was duly made but the grievance was limited to the fact that the disclosure carried a different value in the two affidavits..The Court thus observed that it was for the petitioner to show how this difference in valuation/purchase price would have adversely affected the choice made by the citizen and therefore amounted to “undue influence”. Keeping in view the averments in the petition, the Court concluded that the petitioner had failed to do so..“The petition, however, does not disclose as to how this difference in the Purchase Price would and has, in fact, had any direct or indirect interference with the free exercise of the electoral right of any person.”, it said..The Court opined that ‘Election Petition’ was a serious remedy and therefore, it was vital that the corrupt practice charge against Dr Harsh Vardhan should be based on a full and complete statement of material facts which disclosed a complete cause of action..The Court also referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Lok Prahari Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2018) and stated the primary purpose of the disclosure of assets was to allow the citizen to be informed of such an increase in wealth of the candidate which is disproportionate to the known sources of his income. It also noted that in Lok Prahari, the Supreme Court had declined to issue a direction in nature of mandamus to consider the amendment of the Representation of People Act to provide for rejection of nomination paper of the candidates and disqualification of MPs/MLAs/MLCs for furnishing wrong information..Since the petition was silent on how the free exercise of the electoral right of any person was hampered, the Court concluded that there was no cause of action..In view of the above, the Election Petition was dismissed..The petitioner was represented through advocate Dr Surender Singh Hooda..Dr Harsh Vardhan was represented through Advocates Nikhil Goel, Dushyant Sarna, P Harold..Read the Judgement: