HC junks plea against election of NK Sharma

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, September 26

More than two years after SAD-BJP candidate Narinder Kumar Sharma was elected as Member of the Punjab Legislative Assembly from the Dera Bassi Assembly constituency, the Punjab and Haryana High Court today dismissed a petition challenging his election.

The ruling came on Sharma’s application seeking dismissal of the election petition filed by rival candidate Deepinder Singh Dhillon on the ground that it was baseless. Justice Sudip Ahluwalia asserted the court did not find tangible cause of action for petitioner Dhillon to challenge the respondent’s election in 2017 on the alleged ground of non-disclosure of his liabilities towards the government or public institution.

These were actually liabilities of company/companies he was associated with only in his capacity as director. He was not obligated to disclose it in accordance with the specific format in force at the relevant time. “The election petition stands dismissed,” Justice Ahluwalia ruled.

Giving details, Justice Ahluwalia ruled the new requirement of declaring contracts with government, public company or companies was introduced only after October 10, 2018. It was admittedly not in existence when respondent Sharma was elected in March 2017. He could not, by any stretch of imagination, be penalised at this stage for not having disclosed particulars, which were never required of him in the specific format.

“Such an interpretation based on the principle of ‘morality’, so emphatically stressed on behalf of the petitioner, in the opinion of the court, is not called for, as the same would not only have the effect of violating the basic canons of jurisprudence that a person cannot be penalised retrospectively for non-disclosure of any particulars, which were never required to be disclosed at the relevant time. 

“Such a course would also have the effect of overreaching the competent authorities i.e. Election Commission, or the Central Government, who were otherwise authorised to incorporate or modify Form 26 with the evolution of time,” Justice Ahluwalia said. Form 26 affidavit is to be submitted by candidates along with their nomination papers.

The High Court, during the course of the arguments, had questioned how liabilities towards companies could be considered personal liabilities of a candidate? The query came during the hearing of Sharma’s application for dismissal of the election petition.

His counsel submitted that the alleged dues mentioned in the original petition were those of private limited companies only and not of the respondent personally. The Bench was told a private limited company was a separate legal entity from an individual. As such, dues of such company were not required to be mentioned in the affidavit filed by a candidate otherwise associated with the company as its director or in any other capacity. The requirement of law was to mention only the personal liabilities of the candidate, his or her spouse and his dependents.