The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice in a plea challenging the election of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Basanagouda Patil Yatnal from the Bijapur City legislative assembly constituency in Karnataka [Abdul Hameedkhaja Sab Musharif v Returning Officer].
The Karnataka High Court had earlier dismissed the election petition by Congress leader Abdul Hameedkhaja Sab Musharif with costs of ₹1 lakh after finding that it had been casually filed without curing certain defects.
The Congress leader has challenged this decision before the top court, contending that the High Court ought to have taken a more holistic view of the matter.
Senior Advocate Sanjay Hedge with advocates Ananta Prasad Mishra, Rahamathulla Kothwal and Siddika Aisha appeared for the Congress leader today.
In a lighter vein, Hegde submitted that any act, even an act of stupidity, should be a curable defect in such cases.
A Supreme Court Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan today refused to set the aside the costs, although it admitted the appeal and issued notice.
Abdul Hameedkhaja Sab Musharif had lost to Yatnal in the contest for the Bijapur City seat during the 2023 State legislative assembly polls. He later challenged Yatnal's election win by filing an election petition before the Kalburgi Bench of the Karnataka High Court.
In July this year, the High Court dismissed Musharif's plea against Yatnal's election, not on merits but at the admission stage due to non-clearance of the certain defects noticed in the petition.
In this regard, the High Court found that there was a discrepancy between the signature found on the pleadings filed before the Court and the copy of the petition served on the respondent (Yatnal).
The Court concluded that this violated Section Section 81(3) of the Representation of People Act, 1951, which provides that copies of election petitions that are to be provided to respondents must be attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition.
"The variance of signature is a serious aspect and the Court cannot just overlook since it deals with the rights and responsibilities of the parties," the High Court said.
The High Court also found that the petitioner did not provide a proper affidavit in Form 25 as required under the relevant rules.
"The petitioner being the responsible person of the society cannot file an election petition in such a causal manner as done in the instant case," the High Court had said, while dismissing the election petition with a direction to pay ₹1 lakhs as costs.
In his appeal before the Supreme Court, Musharif has submitted that the High Court ought not to have taken such a view.
He further submitted that the High Court should have focused on the object of Section 81 (3). He also highlighted that there were no material deviations in copies of the pleadings provided to the High Court and those served on Yatnal (respondent).