The Himachal Pradesh High Court on Monday rejected Bharatiya Janata Party MP Harsh Mahajan’s objections to a petition by Congress leader Abhishek Manu Singhvi challenging the outcome of the recent Rajya Sabha elections in the state, reported Bar and Bench.
On February 28, Singhvi lost the election to the Upper House of the Parliament to Mahajan. The Congress leader moved the High Court on April 6, challenging the returning officer’s decision to declare the winner of the polls through a draw of lots.
Mahajan had also approached the High Court, alleging that Singhvi had failed to disclose that he had agreed to the procedure.
On Monday, Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua said that Singhvi’s petition did not deal with the aspect of consent.
“The case…is entirely different,” said Dua. “[Singhvi’s] case is that some other provisions of the RP Act 1951 [Representation of the People Act] were required to be applied and not the Rules, which were actually applied.”
At the time of the election, the Congress had 40 MLAs in the 68-member Assembly. The BJP had 25 seats while the remaining three members were independents. The Rajya Sabha election resulted in a tie with both candidates securing 34 votes.
After this, the names of Singhvi and Mahajan were written on separate slips and placed into a box, as per Rule 75 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. This was in the presence of the candidates and the polling agents. One slip was randomly drawn from the box.
The slip had Singhvi’s name. Singhvi was then eliminated from the selection process, leading the returning officer to declare Mahajan as the winner. Mahajan was sworn in as a Rajya Sabha MP on April 3.
Rule 75 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, deals with the counting of votes where only one seat is to be filled. Sub-section (4) of Rule 75 says that when two or more candidates receive an equal number of votes, the “returning officer shall decide by lot which of them shall be excluded”.
In his petition, Singhvi has said that Section 65 of the Representation of the People Act should have been followed after the tie.
The section states: “If, after the counting of the votes is completed, an equality of votes is found to exist between any candidates, and the addition of one vote will entitle any of those candidates to be declared elected, the returning officer shall forthwith decide between those candidates by lot, and proceed as if the candidate on whom the lot falls had received an additional vote.”
Limited-time offer: Big stories, small price. Keep independent media alive. Become a Scroll member today!
Our journalism is for everyone. But you can get special privileges by buying an annual Scroll Membership. Sign up today!