Delhi HC Rejects Petition Requesting Video Of Two UP Constituency Election Processes
Advocate Sidhant Kumar, appearing for the ECI, opposed the petitions, saying they were not maintainable in the high court here as the elections were conducted in UP, recording was done in UP and the office of returning officer was also in UP.
(Source: Tingey Injury Law Firm/ Unsplash)
The Delhi High Court on Thursday rejected petitions seeking supply of video recording of the election process in Fatehpur Sikri and Aligarh Lok Sabha constituencies in Uttar Pradesh.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said merely because the office of the Election Commission of India is in Delhi is no reason to entertain the petition in the high court here when all 'integral and essential facts' fell outside its jurisdiction.
Petitioners Bijendra Singh and Ramnath Singh, who unsuccessfully contested the 2024 polls from Aligarh and Fatehpur Sikri respectively, sought the video footage on the ground that they observed 'certain irregularities' during the counting process.
"It is not disputed that the petitioner seeks to obtain videography in the jurisdiction of Uttar Pradesh (UP) with respect to parliamentary election in Fatehpur Sikri and Aligarh. The election admittedly took place in UP. Video recording has also taken place in UP. The petitioners in both the cases belong to the state of UP. The application seeking a copy of the video recording has been made to the returning officer in UP," the court said.
"No doubt the office of the ECI is within the territorial jurisdiction of this court and at least part of the cause of action is said to have arisen here but this itself may not be the reason to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 and to entertain a writ petition when a substantial part of cause of action has arisen outside the limits of the high court. The instant writ petition is dismissed," Justice Kaurav said.
The court said the petitioners were at liberty to take appropriate remedy before the competent court.
Lawyer Mehmood Pracha, appearing for the petitioners, contended that the petitions were maintainable as the grievance was with respect to the ECI, whose office was in Delhi, adhering with its rules.
Advocate Sidhant Kumar, appearing for the ECI, opposed the petitions, saying they were not maintainable in the high court here as the elections were conducted in UP, recording was done in UP and the office of returning officer was also in UP.
