What Gujarat High Court said on PIL against BJP's uncontested Lok Sabha win in Surat

The Gujarat High Court on Tuesday declined to urgently list a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition challenging the unopposed election of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) candidate Mukesh Dalal to the Surat Lok Sabha constituency in the 2024 General Elections..The mentioning was made before the division bench of Chief Sunita Agarwal and Justice Aniruddha Mayee by a lawyer who said Dalal’s election was being challenged by a voter in Surat.“That is as per the procedure, you file an election petition to challenge the election… Whatever may be the ground, Mr Counsel. You know the procedure. The law is that if you are making any dispute with regard to the election of any candidate for any reason, you have to file an election petition,” Chief Justice Agarwal said..The Court also remarked that when a candidate is elected unopposed, his position is at par with the one who wins after the process of polling and counting of votes.“If a candidate is elected, uncontested, he is also in the same position as a winning candidate who has been declared a winning candidate after the process of polling and counting of votes. He doesn't fall in any other different criteria and there is no provision, any in the Representation of Peoples Act to treat him differently…,” Justice Agarwal said..BJP candidate Dalal was declared elected from Surat parliamentary constituency after all other contenders withdrew their candidature, the Hindustan Times reported. The nomination papers of the Congress candidates had earlier been rejected due to alleged discrepancies. The counsel who made the mentioning before Court said Dalal had already been given a certificate by the Election Commission of India, declaring him a winner without holding the election which was scheduled for May 7. .In response to the Court’s observation, he said that the petitioner was not filing an Election Petition but a PIL. Justice Agarwal questioned how a PIL was maintainable in the matter. “Why would you file a PIL in an election matter? And why would we entertain a PIL,” the Court asked.As the counsel submitted that there is always option of “negative vote” to the voters which was not given to people in Surat, the Court said,“You are highlighting the flaw in the process procedure by which a candidate has been declared a winning candidate. Is this your argument? Yes. So this argument falls within the jurisdiction of an authority which is by way of an election petition.”.The Court added that whatever may be the petitioner’s argument, once there exists a statutory remedy, a PIL cannot be entertained. “We are on the first principle. So if you have remedy, why would you come in PIL and if there is a structure provided. Representation of Peoples Act provides the procedure, why would we entertain PIL.”After the lawyer clarified that he was only mentioning the matter, the Court said it was rejecting the request.“You are only on urgent mentioning? Let it come, we will see it. But there is no urgency according to us because you have approached the wrong forum. That is why we were rejecting your request for urgent mentioning”.