Remedy is Election Petition: Kerala High Court rejects PIL alleging Rajeev Chandrasekhar filed false affidavit

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday rejected a public interest litigation (PIL) petition which alleged that Union Minister Rajeev Chandrasekhar has filed false affidavits in his nomination form for contesting the upcoming Lok Sabha elections as Bharatiya Janata Party's (BJP) candidate from the Thiruvananthapuram constituency [Avani Bansal & Anr v The Election Commission of India & Ors.].A Bench of Justices VG Arun and S Manu accepted the argument of the Election Commission of India (ECI) that once the nomination of a candidate is accepted by the returning officer, the remedy for the aggrieved person is to file an election petition before the High Court and not a PIL."As rightly contended by counsel for Election Commission of India, the remedy of the petitioner, if aggrieved by the acceptance of the affidavit filed by one of the candidates is to challenge the same in an election petition," the Court said in its order. The Court also noted that there is no legal provision mandating that the returning officer should give a reasoned explanation for his decision on a complaint regarding discrepancies in the election affidavit of a candidate. One of the arguments by the petitioners was that though they had lodged a complaint with the returning officer pointing out the discrepancies in Chandrasekhar's election affidavit, there was no reasoned decision rendered by the returning officer on that complaint."Where is the statutory provision that says that a reasoned order must be given by the returning officer on complaints given to them," the Court asked the petitioners."Am I not entitled to know what is the action taken on the complaint," Senior Advocate George Poonthottam asked on behalf of the petitioner. "That stage is over. Whether or not it was right of the returning officer to not give you a reasoned order, we cannot decide now. We cannot find a statutory provision also," the Court responded.The Court, therefore, proceeded to reject the plea. "We are of the opinion that the question as to whether the returning officer should have passed a reasoned order cannot be decided at this point of time and no direction can be issued to him to communicate reasons for the decision on the complaint at this point of time," the Bench stated in its order. .The petitioners in this case alleged that Chandrasekhar deliberately omitted his assets including his properties, luxury cars and private jets and also grossly undervalued his shares in various companies.The PIL moved by advocate and Indian National Congress leader Avani Bansal and one Renjith Thomas alleged that it is a rampant practice for candidates contesting in elections to file false affidavits along with their nominations.The petitioners claimed that as public-spirited individuals, they filed a complaint in this regard against Chandrasekhar before the returning officer in Thiruvananthapuram. They added that they had also provided prima facie evidence to justify an enquiry into the allegations.As per the plea, the statutory authority to enquire into complaints made against candidates is the returning officer and he is required to give a speaking order with regard to any complaints that are made.However, in this case, the returning officer is yet to give any order or report on the complaints, the petition stated."The nomination submitted by the 4th respondent (Chandrasekhar) is in utter and repeated violation of the relevant provision sof the Representation of Peoples Act, 1950, the Conduct of Election Rules 1961, and as per the compendium given on the Election Commission of India's website," the plea said.It pointed out that filing a false affidavit is punishable under Section 125A of the Representation of People Act, with imprisonment for a term which may extend upto 6 months or with a fine, or both.The returning officer not providing a reasoned order in response to their complaint violates their right to know whether the allegations in the complaint have been accepted or denied, it was argued.All they have is the word "admitted" against Chandrasekhar's name on the Election Commission of India's website, the petitioners contended.This is by no means a "reasoned order", the petitioners said while seeking orders from the High Court directing the returning officer to pass a reasoned order on the complaints filed by Bansal within a period of two days..The petitioners were represented by Senior Advocate George Poonthottam, and advocates Nisha George, AL Navaneeth Krishnan, Reginald Valasalan, Namita Philson, Anshin KK and Sidharth R Wariyar..[Read Judgment]