Delhi HC dismisses plea challenging election of Union Minister Meenakshi Lekhi to Lok Sabha
Aug 29, 2023
New Delhi [India], August 29 : The Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed a plea challenging the election of Meenakshi Lekhi (current Minister of State for External Affairs and Culture of India) from the New Delhi Constituency during the 2019 General election.
The plea was moved by Ramesh, who also contested the 2019 election as an independent candidate.
The bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula, while passing the Judgement in the matter said, the Court finds that the present election petition fundamentally lacks ‘material facts’, which are essential to confer it with a cause of action. Sans any underpinning material, the Petitioner’s broad averments are insufficient to sustain the allegations of electoral corrupt practices.
Court said the petition is replete with allegations of corrupt electoral practices, it notably lacks the requisite material facts and specific details.
Petitioner argues that Respondent/Minakshi Lekhi exceeded the permissible election expenditure limit of Rs. 70 lakhs, but the basis for this claim remains vague. Throughout the petition, the central contention seems to be that the Respondent understated the expenses related to election activities in the official register. However, there is a conspicuous absence of specific details highlighting the discrepancies between the declared amounts and the alleged actual expenditures, said the court.
Petitioner’s claims appear to be predicated on conjectures and assumptions rather than on solid evidence, further added the court.
Appearing for Minakshi Lekhi, Advocates Harish Pandey and Anshuman Tiwari submitted that Petitioner’s accusations are broad, imprecise, and lack substantial evidence or documentation supporting the claims of corrupt election practices.
Petitioner Ramesh, who appeared in person and had through a plea claimed that Respondent allegedly resorted to unlawful methods to secure a win, including the casting of fraudulent votes by election staff, who impersonated legitimate voters. The affidavit presented by the Respondent, detailing her assets, did not conform to the governing rules.
