Horse trading during Rajya Sabha polls | Himachal HC junks plea: ‘collected material show bribe was accepted for voting’

Rakesh Sharma, a former chief secretary of Uttarakhand, is also the father of former Gagret MLA Chaitanya Sharma who was disqualified along with five other MLAs by the Congress soon after the Rajya Sabha election for defying a party whip.

Rakesh Sharma and Ashish were booked were booked on march 10 last year under the Prevention of Corruption Act with the accusations against the two revolving around alleged horse-trading during the Rajya Sabha elections and a purported conspiracy to destabilise the state government.

The FIR, registered on the complaint of Congress MLA Bhuvneshwar Gaur at Boileauganj police station shortly after the polls, alleged that votes were cast not according to conscience but in return for extraneous considerations such as money and other favours.

“In the present case, the information disclosed the misuse of money and other resources to purchase the vote under illegal influence and casting of votes in favour of the rival candidates. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sita Soren v. Union of India, (2024) that taking a bribe for casting a vote in a particular manner is not protected under the privileges of Parliament,” the bench said.

“The allegations in the FIR and the material collected by the prosecution show that the bribe was accepted for voting in the Rajya Sabha elections. Therefore, the FIR cannot be quashed,” the bench added.

Ashish and Chaitanya were among the nine MLAs — six Congress rebels and three independents — who had voted in favour of BJP nominee Harsh Mahajan in the Rajya Sabha election.

Congress candidate Abhishek Manu Singhvi lost the election through draw of lots despite the Congress at that time having 40 MLAs in the 68-member House.

All of them later joined the BJP.

Chaitanya unsuccessfully contested the bypolls to Gagret Assembly seat in in May last year while Ashish won the byelection from Hamirpur seat in July 2024.

The high court also dismissed arguments that the FIR’s swift registration suggested political vendetta.

Citing Supreme Court rulings, the bench held that political motives alone do not warrant quashing criminal proceedings.

It also rejected the plea that Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which requires prior sanction for investigating public servants, was applicable in the present case.

“In the present case, the allegations against the appellant pertain to the abuse of official position and corrupt practices while holding public office. Such allegations fall squarely within the category of cognizable offences, and there exists no legal requirement for a preliminary inquiry before the registration of an FIR in such cases. The appellant’s contention that successive FIRs have been registered against him with an ulterior motive is a matter that can be examined during the investigation and trial. The appellant has adequate remedies under the law, including the right to seek quashing of frivolous FIRs under Section 482 CrPC, the right to apply for bail, and the right to challenge any illegal actions of the investigating authorities before the appropriate forum,” the bench observed.

Rakesh Sharma and Ashish in their plea had also contended that there was no direct evidence of bribery and that the FIR only mentioned rumours.

However, the court pointed out that the rest of the FIR contained specific allegations regarding the exchange of money and resources to influence votes.

“It is impermissible to quash the FIR on the ground of political vendetta.

The FIR was registered for taking bribes under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

It was laid down by the supreme court in State of Chhattisgarh v. Aman Kumar Singh, that corruption is eroding public life, and it is the constitutional duty of the Courts to show zero tolerance to corruption,” the bench said.

The court also observed that the absence of the bribe-giver’s name in the FIR did not invalidate it, noting that an FIR can be lodged against unknown persons, and investigations could reveal identities later.

Also dismissing the petitioners argument that the case lacked evidence, the court held that there was sufficient evidence to support ongoing investigation into a case of possible criminal conspiracy and illegal gratification during the election process.

The judgment also relied on the apex court’s observation in Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India, warning that cross-voting under the guise of “conscience voting” undermines party discipline and the parliamentary system.

“This would weaken the party discipline over the errant legislators,” the bench said quoting from the judgement.

Further, the Court emphasized that while enthusiasm in registering FIRs must be curbed, the presence of prima facie material justifying investigation cannot be ignored.

The court ruled that since the FIR discloses the commission of a cognizable offence and the investigation is ongoing, the petition seeking to quash the FIR is premature and thus liable to be dismissed.

The petition was accordingly dismissed, with the court clarifying that its observations were limited to the disposal of the present petition and would not affect the merits of the case.

Senior Advocate Randeep Singh Rai represented the petitioners while Advocate General Anup Rattan represented the State.