Delhi Court declines Plea Seeking Investigation โฃinto Gandhi‘s Voter Registration
Table of Contents
Published: November 2, 2023 | Last Updated: November 2, 2023
Backgroundโข ofโ the Case
Aโ Delhi court has dismissed a petition requesting an investigation โคinto allegations of forgery,โ cheating, criminal conspiracy, andโฃ violations of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, leveledโ against a prominent political figure. The petition, filed by Vikas Tripathi, centered on claims thatโ the โคindividual’s name appeared on โthe electoral roll before officially becoming an Indian citizen.
Tripathi allegedโข that the individual in question โobtained Indian โฃcitizenship in 1983, yet their nameโ was present onโ theโฃ voter list for the New Delhi constituency as early as 1980. Heโข further asserted that the name was removed from the list in 1982 and subsequently reinstated in 1983.
The Petitioner’s Request
Based on these claims, Tripathi requested the court to direct authorities to register a โcase against the individual for alleged offenses including cheating, forgery, criminal conspiracy, and violations of the Representation of โthe People Act, 1950, due to alleged false declarations.
Court’s Reasoning and Ruling
In a detailed order,Additional chief Justice Magistrate Vaibhav Chaurasiya ruled against the petition. The court reasoned that the sole authority to determine eligibility forโค inclusion or exclusion from the electoral roll, as well โคas to adjudicate electoral offenses, rests with โคthe Election Commission of India (ECI).
“Likewise, the authority to determine the eligibility of aโฃ personโข to โbeโข included in or excluded from the electoral roll and electoral offences thereof with predicate offense qua IPC/BNS is vested solely in the Electionโฃ Commission of India underโค the Representation of the โขPeople Act, 1950, Representation of People Act, 1951 and the allied enactments,” Judge Chaurasiya stated in the order.
Essentially, the courtโ resolute that the matter falls squarely withinโค the โฃjurisdiction of the ECI, not the criminal justice system.
Implications
This ruling clarifies the โขjurisdictional boundaries regarding electoral roll disputes and emphasizesโข the ECI’s exclusive authority in such โฃmatters. It underscores the importance of addressing electoral concerns through the established mechanisms overseen by the Election Commission.
I hope you โขfound this report insightful. If you have thoughts on this case, or โother stories you’d like to see covered, please share your comments โคbelow! And if you appreciate clear, fact-based reporting like this, consider subscribing to our newsletter for regular updates. Your support helps us continue delivering the news that matters.