Sunday, December 22, 2024
HomeNewsLegal"Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Nitish Kumar's Election as JDU President"

“Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Nitish Kumar’s Election as JDU President”

Former JDU Member’s Bid to Overturn Nitish Kumar’s Leadership Falls Flat in Court

The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a plea challenging Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar’s election as the President of Janata Dal United (JDU), rejecting claims made by former JDU member Govind Yadav that the party’s internal elections were unlawful [Govind Yadav v Union of India & Ors]. In an order dated August 29, Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav found no merit in Yadav’s petition, stating there was no justification for the court to intervene in the internal party processes of JDU.

“The petition lacks merit and falls outside the jurisdictional scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the writ petition is hereby dismissed along with pending application(s). No order as to costs,” the Court stated. Yadav had argued that the internal elections conducted by JDU in 2016, 2019, and 2022 violated the Representation of People Act and JDU’s constitution.

Yadav’s petition called for the annulment of changes made to the party’s records maintained by the Election Commission of India (ECI), alleging they were in breach of Section 29A (9) of the Representation of People Act. This section requires any political party to promptly notify the ECI of material changes such as alterations in name, leadership, or address.

However, the court noted that the issue had already been raised in 2017, when a factional dispute within JDU was resolved by the ECI in favor of Nitish Kumar. The ECI had then ruled that Kumar’s faction, which demonstrated majority support in both the legislative wing and National Council, was the legitimate JDU and allowed them to retain the party’s reserved symbol, the Arrow.

Justice Kaurav concluded that the relief sought by Yadav was outside the scope of what is permissible under Section 29A of the Representation of People Act. Legal representation in the case included Advocate Pathak Rakesh Kaushik for Yadav, and Advocates Sidhant Kumar and Om Batra for the Election Commission of India.

(With inputs from agency)

Share your news, articles, deals, columns, or press releases with us! Click the link to submit and join our platform today.

RELATED ARTICLES

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Today's Headlines