Plea against Pratibha rejected

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a public interest litigation petition that sought cancellation of the nomination of Pratibha Patil for the Presidential election.

The plea wanted Ms. Patil disqualified on the ground that she was facing a criminal case and was also an undischarged insolvent. Observing that the court cannot act on mere allegations, a vacation Bench of Justices Tarun Chatterjee and P.K. Balasubramanyan dismissed the petition of advocate Manohar Lal Sharma.

The Bench said, “We cannot decide on the validity of the nomination or her disqualification in a petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. It is for the Election Commission to decide. If you want, you approach the Commission.”

The order said, “This petition is filed under Article 32. We find no ground to interfere and exercise our jurisdiction. However, this will not prevent the petitioner from approaching the appropriate authorities for redress of his grievance. Petition dismissed.”

After the ruling, Solicitor-General G.E. Vahanvati and Additional Solicitor-General Gopal Subramaniam told the court that a seven-judge Bench had stated that courts should not interfere once an election process begins. When senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi endorsed Mr. Vahanvati’s statement, the Bench said, “the question is who is responsible for this.”

Earlier, the Bench asked the petitioner whether it was a private interest litigation or a public interest litigation. “Can we proceed on your allegation that she [Ms. Patil] is an undischarged insolvent? You have to satisfy us on the basis of some materials. You have to show that this particular person is responsible for all your allegations. There is no material, no documents. We do not know whether the materials you rely on is correct or not. Tell us on what basis we can act. Can we proceed without any material? You withdraw this petition.”

The petitioner said he tried his best to get documents but nothing was made available to him. The court could issue a direction to the authorities concerned to produce materials. The Bench said, “Where is the adjudication by the insolvency court that she is an undischarged insolvent? When she is not declared an undischarged insolvent by the competent court, where is the question of her disqualification?”