Delhi High Court rejects election petition against AAP MLA Durgesh Pathak

The Delhi High Court on February 4 dismissed an election petition challenging the election of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA Durgesh Pathak from the Rajinder Nagar assembly constituency in 2022 [Ramesh Kumar Khatri Vs. Durgesh Pathak]. .The petition was filed by Ramesh Kumar Khatri, an independent candidate who contested the 2022 by poll which was necessitated after former MLA Raghav Chadha resigned as MLA upon his election to Rajya Sabha. Khatri alleged that Pathak had indulged in 'corrupt practice' by not maintaining proper accounts or accurately disclosing the expenditure incurred by him for the poll campaign. Khatri also sought Pathak’s disqualification from contesting any election for a period of six years under Representation of the People Act (RP Act).Pathak sought rejection of the petition on ground that there was no cause of action..Justice Mini Pushkarna observed that the allegations against Pathak did not constitute 'corrupt practice' under the RP Act.“Every contravention of Section 77 of the 1951 Act, does not constitute a corrupt practice. As per the law laid down by the Supreme Court, contravention of Sections 77(1) and 77(2) or the failure to maintain correct accounts with the prescribed particulars, does not fall within the definition of corrupt practice, as defined in Section 123(6) of the 1951 Act,” the Court stated. .The Court observed that it is only when the election candidate exceeds the authorised expenditure, it would be considered a corrupt practice."It is only if the candidate incurs or authorizes expenditure in excess of the prescribed amount in contravention of Section 77(3) of the 1951 Act, that a candidate would be considered to have committed corrupt practice in terms of Section 123(6) of the 1951 Act," the Court observed. In the present case, the Court observed that the petition did not state that Pathak had exceeded the prescribed limit of expenditure. In fact, he had incurred expenditure lesser than the prescribed limit, the Court said.“There is no averment in the Election Petition that the respondent no. 1 has spent for the election, an amount exceeding the prescribed limit. Perusal of the said documents filed along with the Election Petition by the petitioner, discloses that the respondent no. 1 had incurred lesser expenditure as per the record maintained by the representatives of the Election Commission of India than what was claimed by the respondent no. 1,” the Court stated..Further, even if the allegations mentioned in the petition were true, they did not constitute a corrupt practice, the Court added.“Even if the allegations made in the petition regarding not maintaining proper account is established, that would still not amount to constituting a corrupt practice, in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the petition does not disclose any cause of action,” the single-judge stated. Accordingly, it rejected the petition with the observation that no cause of action was made out. “Consequently, it is held that the present petition does not disclose any cause of action. The only allegations that have been made in the election petition, are pertaining to improper maintenance of accounts by the respondent, which as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court, does not fall within the scope of "corrupt practice" as defined in Section 123(6) of the 1951 Act,” the judgment said..Ramesh Kumar Khatri appeared in-person.Senior Advocate Gautam Narayan with advocates Karan Sharma, Asmita Singh, Mohit Siwach, Rishikesh Kumar and Sheenu Priya appeared for Pathak.[Read Order].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.