HC dismisses election petition against Sonia

The Allahabad High Court today dismissed an election petition challenging Sonia Gandhi's election from Rae Bareli Lok Sabha constituency in 2014 on the issue of her citizenship and for allegedly playing a communal card to garner Muslim votes.
Dismissing a petition filed under the Representation of People Act, 1951 with costs, the Lucknow bench of the court held that the election petition lacks in material facts and does not constitute a complete cause of action.
"The Court finds that the pleadings in the election petition does not set out the material facts and, therefore, constitutes an incomplete cause of action. The application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure is allowed as a result of which the election petition is dismissed with costs," Justice Tarun Agarwala said in the 47- page order.

On the plea that Gandhi has committed a "corrupt practice" by allegedly seeking Muslim votes, the court said it should be shown that the act was done during the election campaign between the date of her candidature and poll and she should have committed the act herself or through her agent or any other person with her consent to appeal to vote on ground of her religion.
"Such ingredients are essential and are required to be pleaded in order to constitute a cause of action raising a triable issue.
"In the instant case, such ingredients are missing in the election petition. Material facts are lacking and, consequently, the Court finds that no cause of action arises on this issue," the judge said.

The election petition filed by one Ramesh Singh contended that Sonia Gandhi has dual citizenship, as she is an Italian citizen by birth and the Italian law does not allow dual citizenship and had sought her election from Rae Bareli be set aside as void, Sonia's lawyers P P Rao and K C Mittal said.

It also pleaded that her election from Rae Bareli be dismissed as she allegedly had got an appeal made to Muslim voters through the Shahi Imam of Jama Masjid to vote for her and her party, the Indian National Congress, ahead of elections, which amounts to a corrupt practice.

The court said the allegation of corrupt practice is based on TV channel reports, which is of no value if it is without any further proof of what had actually happened through witnesses.
"This Court finds that the said decision is clearly applicable, in as much as, no proof has been submitted by the petitioner with regard to the source of information," the court said.
It added that reports of news channels cannot be taken into consideration unless it is accompanied by the statement of the reporter who voiced the news report in the TV channels.
Citing Supreme Court rulings, the court said it is clear

that the appeal to vote on the ground of religion must be the religion of that candidate and the appeal is to be made on the basis of the religion of the candidate for whom votes are solicited.
"There is no such assertion to this effect in the election petition. In fact the assertion is, that the appeal was to garner Muslim votes. Admittedly the respondent is not a Muslim. Thus, on this ground, material facts are lacking," it said.
The court also said that it finds that assertions made by the petitioner revolves on the fact that Gandhi met Syed Ahmad Bukhari on April 1, 2014 and appealed to him to vote on the ground of religion.

"Such assertion cannot amount to corrupt practice, as per Section 123(3) of the Act, inasmuch as, respondent No.1 was not a candidate on April 1, 2014, as per Section 79(b) of the Act. The allegations made in the election petition could not amount to corrupt practice," it said, adding Section 123(3) of the Act specifies that appeal by a candidate must be to vote on ground of "his" religion.
On the plea that Sonia holds dual citizenship, the Court said the assertions made are "bald allegations made without any basis and do not amount to pleading of material facts, which may warrant any inquiry into these allegations".

The Court further said all assertions have been made about Italian law without stating what the source of such law is and basis for raising such pleadings have not been indicated.
"The assertions verified as true to my knowledge and based on legal advice is wholly unacceptable. Such assertions does not amount to disclosure of material facts. The pleading on this issue is apparently vague, lacks material facts and, therefore, must fail," the court said.