Should've given reasons for refusing to act against registration of SAD: HC tells EC

Counsel for the petitioners, advocate Indira Unninayar said that there were exceptions to the law against the EC reviewing its own decision on registration and it included cases of fraud.The lawyer said that SAD was granted registration based on a fabricated document as it did not give its real constitution to the election authorities.If they are ready to look into it, the matter ends.

The Delhi High Court on Thursday said that the Election Commission (EC) should have given reasons while refusing to act on allegations that the registration of Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) as a political party was obtained through fraud.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, which was hearing a PIL by two social activists who had approached the election authority earlier with their representation against the registration of the political party, granted time to the lawyer for the Election Commission to obtain instructions on the issue and listed the case for further hearing on August 1.

''There is no reason assigned in the order. Election Commission was under an obligation to pass an order (when an allegation of fraud was made). You should have passed a proper speaking order,'' said the bench also comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad.

In their PIL, the petitioners Balwant Singh Khera and Om Singh have sought directions for the de-registration of SAD.

Advocate Sidhant Kumar, appearing for the EC, contended that the poll panel cannot subsequently review its decision concerning registration to a political party.

He sought a week from the court to seek instructions and said that the authority may voluntarily consider the stand of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioners, advocate Indira Unninayar said that there were exceptions to the law against the EC reviewing its own decision on registration and it included cases of fraud.

The lawyer said that SAD was granted registration based on a ''fabricated document'' as it did not give its ''real constitution'' to the election authorities.

''If they are ready to look into it, the matter ends. Else we will pass an order,'' the court said as it listed the case for further hearing on August 1.

The petition was opposed by senior lawyer Arvind Nigam who appeared for SAD.

In its petition, the petitioners have said that in the present case registration was obtained after giving a ''false'' undertaking that the political party was a ''secular'' outfit.

It has claimed that SAD ''intentionally withheld'' from the EC the real party 'Constitution/Rules and Regulations' of 1974 which limit ''membership of the party to adult Singhs and Singhnis''.

''SAD knowingly and willfully filed a false and fabricated document titled 'Rules and Regulations' with a rule allowing membership to all adults and an undertaking that it would be 'secular', along with its application for registration in 1989 in order to show that it was complying with the Section 29(A) of The RP Act, 1951,'' the plea has said. Section 29(A) of The Representation of the People Act, of 1951 deals with the registration of a political party with the Election Commission.

The plea, filed through advocates Prashant Bhushan and Indira Unninayar, has also alleged that the SAD has ''amply demonstrated'' that it had intentionally given the false undertaking to defraud the EC as it never intended to be 'secular' by its continued alignment with the Sikh religion.