Delhi High Court on Thursday dismissed a plea seeking directions to the Election Commission of India (ECI) for cancellation of the Aam Aadmi Party’s registration for allegedly using forged documents.
“(The) petition is dismissed,” a bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice R S Endlaw said.
The judgement came on the plea of Hans Raj Jain, who had sought the cancellation alleging that the “registration of AAP was allowed (by the ECI) in a hurried manner on the basis of false and fabricated documents without making any proper enquiries”.
Jain had claimed there were discrepancies in residential addresses given by some AAP members in their affidavits when compared to the addresses given in their voter identity cards or income tax returns.
- DDCA case: Court dismisses AAP leaders' plea for documents
- Delhi High Court asks Centre for guidelines on security to citizens' threat complaints
- Delhi HC dismisses AAP leader's plea in Arun Jaitley's defamation case
- No de-registration of political parties with religious connotation: Delhi HC
- Was registration of AAP done lawfully, High Court asks EC
- HC notice to poll panel in plea questioning AAP’s registration
The ECI, on the other hand, had contended that there was “no lapse or any undue haste” in granting recognition to the party.
“Registration to AAP was granted after completing all requisite formalities and requirements. There was no lapse or any undue haste on the part of the Commission’s office in this regard, as alleged or at all,” the ECI had said in an affidavit.
The poll panel had urged the High Court to dismiss the plea saying “there is no contravention of any provision of the law.”
Jain, in his plea, had also alleged that provisions of the State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act has been violated by AAP as its registration application contained the ‘chakra’ logo as depicted in the national flag.
He had also sought initiation of disciplinary action against EC officials for allegedly failing to verify documents submitted by AAP members.
After hearing arguments of both sides the court had reserved judgement on February 18.