Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Wednesday suggested that the Election Commission of India (ECI) should have tutorials on how to fill out the election nomination forms, while adjudicating multiple petitions filed by persons after their nomination forms were rejected by the Returning Officer (RO).
“ECI should have video tutorials on how to fill forms, create awareness,” a bench of Justices Arif Doctor and Somsekhar Sundaresan said.
On Wednesday, five such petitions were listed for hearing by persons who had filed nomination papers from different assemblies in Maharashtra; and the same were rejected.
Since last week, several such petitions have come up for hearing before the bench. The court had however dismissed most of these petitions as the elections are barely two weeks away.
The court had rejected one petition on Tuesday. Whereas on Wednesday, the court had five similar petitions listed for hearing — one from Mumbai, one from Thane, two from Shahpur and one from Chiplun in Ratnagiri.
The judges clearly indicated that they were not inclined to grant relief as prayed in the petitions as it would disturb the election schedule. The court will pass a detailed order later.
In one petition from Mumbai, advocate Arshad Shaikh argued that petitioner was not administered oath and because of that his nomination was rejected. However, when RO passed order rejecting the nomination form, the candidate was informed that some of the proposers had not signed. The RO should not be given unfettered power to trample the fundamental right of a candidate, Shaikh argued.
Seeking relief, Shaikh highlighted that the election is at least two weeks away.
The bench, however, highlighted that the names have to be published, and every EVM has to reach every polling booth of every constituency which would take time. Hence, it cannot be assumed that 14 days in a long time, the bench remarked. Moreover, even if it is assumed that the RO is wrong in rejecting the nomination form, if any order passed at this stage, then it would disturb the election schedule.
“We do get your point that the RO cannot be given an unfettered power. We cannot be blind to what is palpable wrong. But if the remedy is to ask RO to reconsider then it will be difficult to hold an election and the big picture of holding an election has to be kept in mind,” the bench added.
Additionally, all the candidates had filed writ petitions, as against filing election petitions challenging RO’s orders. The court emphasised that there was three-judge bench judgment on 2021 which held that the RO’s orders can be challenged through election petitions only.
.jpg)