Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

CM No. 24868/2017 (permission to file complete record of the case) For the reasons stated therein, the application is allowed.

LPA No._______/2017 (to be numbered)

1. Admit. The appeal will be heard on the existing paper book.

2. List for directions before the roster Bench on 28th August, 2017.

CM No.24866/2017 (stay)

3.Notice. Notice is accepted by Mr. Amit Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr.Vivek Tankha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.3 Prayers in the application for stay

32. Mr Tankha questioned the urgency in entertaining this application and submitted that the Appellant's vote in the Presidential election which is to take place tomorrow would not be material and was an insufficient justification for passing an ad interim order. Mr. Tankha pointed out that the plea that the disqualification under Section 10A would not affect the Appellant's current tenure as MLA already stood negated when his election petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 10A was dismissed by the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The said petition was amended to include the above ground. The order dismissing the said writ petition had attained finality.

33. Mr Tankha submitted that the decision in Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal v. Rajiv Gandhi (supra) was rendered in the context of an election petition and would not apply to an adjudication by the ECI under Section 10A of the RPA, 1951. Whereas the election petition questioned the conduct of a successful candidate in the period up to the completion of the election process, the subject matter of a petition under Section 10A was his conduct post election. Whereas in the former instance, Section 77(3) of the RPA of 1951 would be relevant, in the latter Sections 77(1) and 77(2) of the RPA 1951 applied. According to Mr Tankha Section 10A of the RPA of 1951 was unambiguously clear that the disqualification would begin to take effect from the date of the order of the ECI and continue for a period of three years thereafter.

34. According to Mr Tankha, there were different kinds of disqualifications. The present one was a statutory disqualification which became effective immediately upon the disqualification being declared. He referred to the decision in ECI v Bajrang Bahadur Singh (2015) 12 SCC 570.

35. Mr. Tankha referred to the passages in Ashok Shankarrao Chavan v. Madhavrao Kinhalkar (supra) to point out that the standard of proof in proceedings under Section 10A of the RPA of 1951 was preponderance of probabilities whereas it was of a higher standard as far as an election petition is concerned. He pointed out that the ECI had held 59 hearings, permitted the leading of evidence by examination and cross examination of witnesses and thereafter had come to a factual finding which had been concurred with by the learned Single Judge. He accordingly submitted that there was no prima facie case made out by the Appellant for grant of any interim order and the application be dismissed.