Delhi HC sets aside EC order against BJP leader Narottam Mishra in paid news case

In a huge relief to BJP leader Narottam Mishra, the Delhi High Court has set aside the order of the election commission which had held Mishra to be guilty of authorizing publication of allegedly paid news..The election commission had noted that though there was no direct evidence that Mishra had incurred the expenditure of publication of any item but since he had knowledge of those publications and he had failed to disavow the same, it amounted to implied authorization..The election commission had passed an order on June 23, 2017, under section l0A of the RPA, 1951 disqualifying Mishra for three years from the date of order..Mishra, who is also a Cabinet Minister in the Madhya Pradesh Government, then approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court seeking suspension of the election commission’s order..However, due to the delay in the hearing, Mishra filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court, which in turn transferred the matter to the Delhi High Court..The Single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissed the petition and held that it found no perversity in the findings of the election commission in holding that there was an ‘implied authorization’ by Mishra to publish the allegedly paid news items..Thereafter, Mishra filed an appeal before the Division Bench which also declined to stay the order of the election commission. Mishra then again approached the Supreme Court..The apex Court stayed the Election Commission order and opined that the matter involves substantial questions of law regarding the interpretation of various provisions of the RPA, 1951 and reverted the matter back to the Delhi High Court..Appearing for Mishra, Senior Advocate CA Sundaram argued that Mishra had filed accounts incurring an expenditure of Rs.2,40,827 on advertisements. It was further submitted that the allegations by complainants were that the expenditure amounted to Rs.6,07,980 in publications..Sundaram urged that even if that alleged expenditure were to be added to the declared expenditure, the limit prescribed by law (Section 77 RPA) of Rs. 10 lakhs would not be exceeded, or the law contravened..The Division Bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Sunil Gaur observed that,.“Section 10A of the Act empowers the EC to investigate into whether there was an express/implied expenditure/authorization of expenditure by the candidate, however, such investigation cannot be arbitrary and based on conjectures and surmises..As can be observed from the EC‟s report as well as from the observations of the Paid News Committee, the conclusion that Dr. Mishra gave an implied authorization for the advertisements has not been sufficiently proved.” .Finally, the Court held that the EC and the Single Judge have erred in their interpretation of sections 77 and 78 of the Act read with rules 88, 89 and 90 by upholding that there was implied authorization by Mishra for publication of the news articles..The Court also observed that elections are the only mechanism in a democracy, such as our country’s where the voiceless, the disempowered and the poorest have the right to vote, equally with the mightiest, the richest and the most influential voters..“The courts and tribunals who are tasked with the responsibility of rooting out the ills and distortions that plague the electoral system are to work within the framework of the laws and the Constitution….the rule of law requires that every conclusion of the tribunal or courts are to be based on facts established by evidence. .Therefore, an assumption based stipulative decisions are to be avoided.”.Read Judgment: