Dr. Mandati Thriupathi Reddy Vs Secretary General P.C. Mody & Ors.
Date of Judgement:
29 June 2022.
Justice Surya Kant
Justice J.B Pardiwala
Petitioner – Dr. Mandati Thirupathi Reddy
Respondent – Security General P.C. Mody & Ors.
The Petition was filed as to challenge the Nomination selection procedure for Presidential Election. The reasons as to why nomination cannot be filed by the petitioner.
SECTION 5B (1) of Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952
This section deals with the procedure for the nominations of presidential elections. This section requires each candidate to deliver the nomination paper in the prescribed form and in between the specified time and at specified place.
- The petitioner filed the petition challenging the nomination procedure of Presidential Election, he was not permitted to give his nomination as the nomination form did not comply with the compulsory conditions under the given section.
- The returning officer has also, based upon the section 5B (1) of the Act did not permit the Petitioner as he did not comply with the Statutory conditions.
- Whether the rejection of the nomination is in conformity with the legal provisions and whether such an act by Returning Officer is valid?
Arguments advanced by the Petitioner
- The petitioner argued that he is the eligible candidate for the President of India has high educational qualifications, commendable doctorates and is most suitable to be elected as President.
- The petitioner further argued that just because the nomination papers are not signed by lawmakers as seconders and proposers as per the provisions of that Act cannot be stopped from permitting to contest for President elections.
Arguments advanced by the Respondent
- The respondent counter argued that the petitioner has not complied with the provisions of Section 5B (1) of that Act, that held that the nomination has to be submitted within the specified time.
- The respondent further claims that the signature is not verified, there had to be digital signature and the nomination paper has to be signed by 50 proposers and seconders.
- The respondent contends that there has been no legal infirmity or invalidity for in the rejection made by the Returning officer.
- The court hearing to both the parties observed that the nomination paper submitted by the petitioner, does not comply all the aspects of the provision.
- The Returning officer thus has the authority to reject the same as it was not in conformity to the Act.
- Thus, the contention of the petitioner with regards to validity of the same rejection was also held to be legally valid.
- Thus, the validity of the process of election of President challenged by the petitioner has been rejected and held the act of the security general was in conformity with the provisions stated in the Act.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement