Judge Prakash De Naik, of the Bombay High Court, on Friday morning, refused to entertain the NCP leader, Nawab Malik, and to provide him with immediate assistance in his petition challenging the NCP chief. Special court order refusing his petition She is seeking a nod to visit Vidan Sabha on Friday to vote for the Rajya Sabha elections. Judge Naik asked Malik to transfer an appropriate body in the Supreme Court to seek redress.
Senior lawyer Amit Desai, who is representing Malik, said the NCP leader sought to overturn the court’s special order and did not request bail, but if the court allowed, he could go with an escort to cast his votes.
However, Additional Solicitor General, Anil Singh, representing the Central Agency, questioned whether the petition could be maintained and said that the petitioner had applied for bail and therefore could have preferred a remedy under Section 439 (special powers of the Supreme Court or Sessional Court on the release of He was released on bail because a special court refused to release him on bail.In front of the special court, too, the petitioner urged the possibility of releasing him on bail.
He referred to Section 62 (5) of the Representation of the People Act and said that prayer to cast their votes could not be granted. “It would set a false precedent if relief in a writ petition was granted without an application under section 439 of the CPC. The petitioner says it is his duty to vote, so why did he wait until this time to file his petition?”
The best of Express Premium
Desai, in my response, said that apart from the issue of bail, the larger issue is about the exercise of democratic rights and that the petitioner has abandoned the plea for bail.
In response to the allegations of delays in filing the petition, Desai said that on June 3, there was no withdrawal of an additional candidate for the Rajya Sabha elections, which led to the actual competition and there was no room for an unopposed election.
“In the context of balancing, the applicant felt that if there was a competition, he would go and vote and therefore the application was submitted to the Special Court on June 6. There is no delay on his part. But he is trying to be conscious in balancing my right to vote with the fact that I am under arrest. I agree that there could have been a proper application but because of the peculiar situation and the larger issue of democracy and upholding democratic values, the litigant is allowed to go to the vote.”