Imphal, September 23 (MExN): The High Court of Manipur, on September 23, declared the election of Lorho Pfoze as Member of 2-Outer Manipur (ST) Parliamentary Constituency to the 17th Lok Sabha, 2019 as ‘null and void.’ He contested the election on a Naga People’s Front ticket.
With declaration, the judgement order issued by a single bench of Justice MV Muralidaran also acknowledged the Bhartiya Janata Party’s Houlim Shokhopao Mate as “duly elected.’
Mate, the second position holder in the election, had filed an ‘Election Petition,’ which among others, called for setting aside the election results declaring Pfoze, as the winner.
“This Court declared that the Petitioner is duly elected as a member of 2-Outer Manipur (ST) Parliamentary Constituency,” the order stated.
Pfoze got 3,63,527 votes and Haulim Shokopao Mate got 2,89,745 votes in the said election.
As per the Court’s order, the petition was by the petitioner under Section 100(1)(d)(i)&(iv) and under Section 100(1)(b) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (for short, “the RP Act”) to declare that the election as “null and void” and to declare that the petitioner as the duly elected Member.
Among others, the objection was raised by the petitioner regarding an affidavit in Form 26, which was filed while filing nomination for an election.
A candidate is required to file the affidavit sworn before a Magistrate of the First Class or before a Notary Public or a Commissioner of Oaths appointed by the High Court of the State concerned furnishing information on assets, liabilities, educational qualifications, criminal antecedents and so on.
As per the petitioner, Pfoze first filed the Form 26 dated March 3, 2019 along with his nomination paper and the Returning Officer “abruptly and improperly” accepted nomination paper on March 26, 2019 during scrutiny.
According to the petitioner, the Form 26 suffers such as keeping Column 5 of Para 4 of the affidavit was blank while there was misleading gross total value of assets, and thereby filing false affidavit.
He failed to disclose vital material information in his affidavit pertaining to his non-agricultural lands and other interest in immovable, it said. Details of contracts entered into by private companies in which candidate or spouse or dependents have share were not disclosed, it added.
According to the petitioner, the nomination paper thus was “improperly accepted” and called for setting aside the election.
While the counsel for Pfoze submitted that three nomination papers along with affidavits were submitted on various dates and since typographical mistakes were detected in first two nomination papers and affidavits, the third nomination paper and the affidavit in Form 26 dated 25.03.2019 were filed the same day and was accepted by the Returning Officer at the time of scrutiny.
It was, however, noted that the affidavit in From 26 uploaded officially was dated 21.3.2019, and there is no record to show that March 25 affidavit was accepted by the Returning Officer and uploaded in the website.
This Court is of the view that the affidavit in Form 26 filed by the first respondent suffers from the defects of substantial character, the order read.
The act of the first respondent would amounts to corrupt practice and therefore, it materially affected the result of the election, it added.
Having declared the election as void, the Court considered the issue of petitioner seeking to declare him as elected.
The relief sought by the petitioner falls within the ambit of Section 84 of the RP Act, the Court concluded.
The Court noted that Pfoze got 363527 votes in the said election while the petitioner got 289745 votes. The next highest person secured votes was 152510 votes by another candidate.
Among all the candidates contested, the petitioner secured 289745 votes and the difference between the petitioner and next highest is 137235 votes, it said.
Though the Supreme Court held that where there are more than two candidates in the field, it is not possible to apply the same ratio as could be applied when there are only two candidates, in the facts and circumstances of the case and number of votes secured by the petitioner, it would be appropriate to consider that the petitioner is duly elected as member, the judge observed.
Consequently, the petitioner is entitled to be declared as elected member of 2-Outer Manipur (ST) Parliamentary Constituency, he added.
