Supreme Court pulls up Bhupesh Baghel for attempt to delay trial in plea challenging his election

The Supreme Court today pulled up former Chhattisgarh Chief Minister and Congress MLA Bhupesh Baghel over attempts to delay the trial of an election petition challenging his 2023 State assembly election victory from the Patan constituency [Bhupesh Baghel v. Vijay Baghel].

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana proceeded to uphold the Chhattisgarh High Court's dismissal of Baghel's plea to first examine if the election petition filed against him was barred by limitation.

The top court also expressed displeasure over the repeated attempts to defer proceedings.

"Let the trial proceed. You are delaying as much as possible. You will have a decision," said Justice Mohana.

The dispute stems from the 2023 Chhattisgarh Assembly polls, where Bhupesh Baghel won the Patan seat by securing 95,438 votes against BJP candidate Vijay Baghel’s 75,715 votes.

Vijay Baghel filed an election petition alleging that Bhupesh Baghel violated the statutory 48-hour "silence period" under Section 126 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, by holding a rally/roadshow on November 16, 2023.

Earlier, the apex court had upheld the Chhattisgarh High Court's refusal to dismiss the election petition at the threshold, granting Baghel liberty to raise all substantive contentions before the trial court.

Baghel later filed a plea before the High Court urging it to first examine whether the election petition is barred by limitation, before moving forward with the deciding the petition on merits.

On October 13, the High Court dismissed this application, observing,

"This Court is not inclined to permit such a separate preliminary adjudication at the present stage."

This was challenged by Baghel before the Supreme Court.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Baghel, pressed the Bench to either decide the preliminary issue on limitation or not hold that no such issue exists.

Sibal argued that the election petition was barred by limitation due to a defectively timed affidavit.

The Bench, however, refused to entertain the plea as a preliminary roadblock.

"Limitation is a mixed question of fact and law. You could have pleaded this earlier. Without framing a basis, there cannot be an issue. The Court cannot confer a right when one is not a party," said Justice Mohana.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi added that election cases have to be decided in a time-bound manner. Allowing Baghel to raise the question of limitation as a preliminary issue would only delay the proceedings further, he observed.

"This is another aspect of delaying the trial. Once we allow this, then you will pray for amendment. Election cases should have time-bound disposal," Justice Bagchi said.

Though Sibal offered to place on record an undertaking that no further applications would be moved, the Bench remained firm that it is not inclined to interfere with the High Court's decision.

"We are upholding the High Court order," the Court said while dismissing Baghel's plea, clearing the decks for the High Court to proceed with the trial of the election petition.

Senior Advocates Vivek Tankha and Dama Seshadari Naidu and advocates Mayank Jain, Harshwardhan Parganiha, Madhur Jain and Arpit Goel also represented Baghel.

[Read Live Proceeding]