Allahabad High Court frames issues on legitimacy of Harshvardhan’s election as BJP MLA From City North Prayagraj

PRAYAGRAJ: The Allahabad High Court has framed issues (issues for adjudication) in the petition challenging the validity of the election of Prayagraj city-north MLA Harshvardhan Bajpai.

At the same time, the court has asked the parties to submit their documentary evidence and written replies by 6 October, and has fixed the next hearing on 10 October.

This order was passed by Justice Siddharth Varma after hearing senior advocate Shailendra on the election petition filed by Congress candidate Anugrah Narayan Singh in the recent assembly election.

Paragraph on issues 
The issues which the court has framed include:

1. Whether, when the elected candidate in the year 2003 provided contradictory information about the completion of BE and BTech courses, can the election of that candidate be declared void?
2. If incorrect information is given on social media, can that affect the election?
3. When was Amit Sharma acting on behalf of the respondent as an election agent without any authority?

Background

• Harshvardhan Bajpai (also spelled “Harsh Vardhan Bajpai”) is the MLA from Allahabad North (city-north / “Prayagraj city north”) constituency in Uttar Pradesh.
• The election petition challenging his election was filed by Anugrah Narayan Singh (a Congress candidate) after the 2022 assembly elections, alleging various irregularities.
• The Allahabad High Court is hearing this challenge, and has now framed (set) the issues to be adjudicated in the case.

What is “framing issues”?

• In election disputes, once the petition (pleading) is accepted as disclosing a cause of action (i.e., it is not dismissed at the threshold), the court frames the “issues” (i.e, questions/points) on which evidence will be led, and parties will contest.
• Earlier, the court had considered striking off certain paragraphs of the petition but found that after modifications, the petition did disclose specific causes of action, so it could not be rejected at the outset under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (which allows rejection of plaints that do not disclose cause of action).

The issues framed & legal significance

1. Contradictory information about educational qualifications (BE / BTech in 2003):
   The petition alleges that the MLA (or candidate) had earlier given conflicting or incorrect details in his nomination affidavit (or earlier public statements) about whether/when he completed BE / BTech. The question is: Does such a contradiction or misrepresentation in educational credentials justify rendering the whole election void?
   In election law, misstatement or concealment of material facts in the nomination affidavit (like education, assets, criminal record, liabilities) may be raised as a ground of invalidity, but courts scrutinize whether the misstatement is material to the voters, or whether it amounts to “corrupt practice.”
2. Incorrect information on social media is influencing the election:
   The petition claims that the respondent (or his supporters) disseminated false statements on social media. The issue is: If a candidate spreads misleading or false information via social media, can that vitiate the election (i.e., be a ground to void it)?
   This relates to the doctrine of “false statements” or “misleading statements” in election law, which may fall under corrupt practices if they affect the structure of the election or unduly influence voters.
3. Acting through an unauthorized “agent” (Amit Sharma) for the respondent:
   The petition contends that Amit Sharma acted as a liaison agent (or performed acts on behalf of the respondent) though he had no authorization. The issue: Whether such unauthorized acts by an agent (not formally authorized) amount to misconduct/irregularity invalidating the election?

Once these issues are framed, the parties will file their written replies, produce documentary evidence, and lead oral evidence as needed.

Legal precedents & challenges

• The High Court must examine whether the alleged misstatements are sufficiently material and whether they have materially affected the outcome of the election.
• Courts have held that mere discrepancies in educational qualification statements may not always amount to corrupt practice unless there is proof that voters were misled and it affected the result. In fact, in a prior judgment, the Allahabad High Court held that providing false information about educational qualifications does not always amount to a corrupt practice under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act.
• The petition’s success would depend on proving, on evidence, that the acts or misrepresentations were intentional and that they materially prejudiced the election.

#ElectionLaw #HarshvardhanBajpai #AllahabadHighCourt #RepresentationOfPeopleAct #LegalIssues #BachchaPasi #JudicialInterimOrder