SC allows Chhattisgarh's ex-CM Bhupesh Baghel to move HC over maintainability of plea against him
Synopsis The Supreme Court has granted Bhupesh Baghel, former Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh, the opportunity to appeal to the High Court regarding a petition filed by his nephew, Vijay Baghel. The petition alleges violations of the Representation of the Peoples Act during the election. The court has directed the High Court to consider the application after hearing both sides. The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed former Chhattisgarh chief minister Bhupesh Baghel to move the high court over a petition filed against him by his nephew Vijay Baghel.
ADVERTISEMENT A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said if such an application is filed, the high court is requested to decide the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the other side before it further proceeds on merits of the case.
Allowing Baghel's counsel to withdraw the plea and move "high court-cum-election tribunal", the bench said, "It goes without saying that the observations made in the impugned order shall have no bearing on the merits of the application proposed to be moved on behalf of the petitioner."
Senior advocate Vivek Tankha and advocate Sumeer Sodhi, appearing for Baghel, said breach of silence period did not amount to corrupt practice and hence the case was not maintainable.
The petition was filed by BJP MP Vijay Baghel who unsuccessfully contested the assembly elections against Bhupesh Baghel from the Patan seat.
Vijay said Bhupesh violated the provision of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 by taking out a procession after 5 pm in Patan constituency.
He sought nullification of the former CM's election and barring him from contesting polls for six years.
(You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel)
(Catch all the Business News, Breaking News, Budget 2025 Events and Latest News Updates on The Economic Times.)
Subscribe to The Economic Times Prime and read the ET ePaper online.
NEXT STORY
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scroll.in
24 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
SC rejects plea seeking delimitation of Assembly seats in Andhra Pradesh, Telangana
The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a petition seeking directions to the Union government to conduct the delimitation process in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, reported Live Law. Delimitation is the process of redrawing the territorial boundaries of electoral constituencies. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh rejected the petitioner's argument that holding the exercise only in Jammu and Kashmir last year and not in the southern states was ' arbitrary or violative of the Constitution', according to Bar and Bench. The Union government had started the delimitation process of Assembly constituencies in Jammu and Kashmir in February 2020. In May 2022, the number of elected Assembly seats in the Union Territory was increased from 83 to 90 in the final delimitation order. Of the seven new seats, one was given to Kashmir, taking its total to 46, and six were given to Jammu, which now has 43 seats. K Purushottam Reddy, a professor, had approached the Supreme Court stating that excluding Andhra Pradesh and Telangana from the exercise 'created an unreasonable classification and was therefore unconstitutional', reported Live Law. Andhra Pradesh was bifurcated in 2014 to create Telangana. The Assembly of the undivided state had 294 seats. After the bifurcation, the Assembly in Andhra Pradesh was allocated 175 seats and Telangana 119. On Thursday, the Supreme Court stated that allowing the delimitation process in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana 'will open floodgates for all states to approach seeking parity'. The bench also said that the provisions dealing with delimitation in states were different from Union Territories.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
24 minutes ago
- Business Standard
SC allows Kerala govt to withdraw pleas against guv over assent to bills
The Supreme Court on Friday allowed the Kerala government to withdraw its pleas against Governor over the delay in approving bills passed by the state assembly. A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar passed the order after senior advocate K K Venugopal, appearing for the Kerala government, sought withdrawal of the plea and said the issue had turned infructuous in view of the recent judgment passed in the Tamil Nadu Governor case. Attorney General R Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta opposed the submission and urged the court to await the top court's decision on the reference of President under Article 143 of the Constitution over the grant of assent to bills. On April 22, the top court said it would examine whether the recent judgement on a plea of Tamil Nadu, fixing timelines for the grant of assent to bills, covered the issues raised by the Kerala government in its pleas. Acting on a plea of Tamil Nadu government, an apex court bench on April 8 set aside the reservation of the 10 bills for President's consideration in the second round holding it as illegal, erroneous in law. The bench, for the first time, also prescribed a time limit for President to decide on the bills reserved for her consideration by Governor. It set a three-month timeframe from the date on which such reference was received. Kerala sought similar directions in its petition. In 2023, the top court expressed displeasure over then Kerala Governor Arif Mohammed Khan "sitting" for two years on bills passed by the state legislature. Khan is currently Governor of Bihar. The top court, on July 26, last year, agreed to consider the plea of opposition-ruled Kerala alleging the denial of assent to bills passed by the legislative assembly. The Kerala government alleged that Khan referred certain bills to President Droupadi Murmu and those were yet to be cleared. Taking note of the pleas, the top court issued notices to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs and the secretaries of Kerala Governor. The state said its plea related to the acts of Governor in reserving seven bills, which he was required to deal with himself, to the President. Not one of the seven bills had anything to do with Centre-state relations, it argued. The bills were pending with the Governor for as long as two years and his action "subverted" the functioning of the state legislature, rendering its very existence "ineffective and otiose", the state added. "The bills include public interest bills that are for the public good, and even these have been rendered ineffective by the Governor not dealing with each one of them 'as soon as possible', as required by the proviso to Article 200," the plea said. The state government had said the home ministry informed it that President had withheld assent to four of the seven bills -- University Laws (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2021; Kerala Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Bill, 2022; University Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2022; and University Laws (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill, 2022. The Constitution is silent on how much time the President can take in granting assent to a bill passed by a state legislature and referred to the Rashtrapati Bhavan for presidential consideration or for denying consent. Article 361 of the Constitution says the President, or Governor of a state, shall not be answerable to any court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his office or for any act done or purporting to be done by him in the exercise and performance of those powers and duties.
Hans India
24 minutes ago
- Hans India
Supreme Court rejects plea to increase Assembly seats in Andhra, Telangana
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday declined to issue a direction to the Centre to increase the number of Assembly seats in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh was dealing with pleas seeking implementation of the provisions under the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, which provided for delimitation of Assembly seats in the two successor states. In its judgment, the Justice Kant-led Bench refused to direct delimitation in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, observing that Article 170 of the Constitution allows delimitation only after the first census conducted post-2026. Delimitation under Article 170 has been frozen until the first census after 2026, as per the 84th and 87th Constitutional Amendments. The apex court rejected the contention that the Centre's decision to carry out delimitation in Jammu and Kashmir, raising the number of Assembly constituencies from 83 to 90 based on the 2011 census, while excluding Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, was arbitrary and discriminatory. Highlighting the constitutional distinctions, it opined that J&K, having been reconstituted as a union territory, is regulated by parliamentary legislation and provisions of the Constitution under Chapter III of Part VI will not apply. In a related development, the Telangana Assembly, in a resolution passed in March this year, urged the Centre to increase the number of seats from 119 to 153, pursuant to the A.P. Reorganisation Act, 2014 and as per the latest census. The state Assembly urged the Union government to introduce necessary Constitutional amendments for this purpose in order to strengthen representative democracy. Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy pointed out that the Centre, in reply to his question when he was a member of the previous Lok Sabha, had stated that the delimitation of Assembly constituencies would be done only after the 2026 census. Reddy slammed the Centre for its double standards on the issue. He said the Centre increased the number of Assembly constituencies from 83 to 90 as per the 2011 census in Jammu and Kashmir, and, in Sikkim, a resolution was passed in the Cabinet in 2018, and the process of delimitation of constituencies is currently underway.
