Delhi HC dismisses PIL against Sachin's nomination to RS

The Delhi High Court today dismissed a PIL challenging cricketer Sachin Tendulkar's nomination to the Rajya Sabha.

"The petition is dismissed," a division bench of Chief Justice D Murugesan and Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw said.

Earlier, Additional Solicitor General Rajeev Mehra, who appeared on behalf of the Centre, had said that Tendulkar's nomination to the Upper House is as per constitutional provision which also allows induction of experts from the field of sports.

The senior lawyer had said the provision under Article 80 of the Constitution is not confined to inducting experts only from the fields of science, arts, literature and social services but also from sports, education and other areas.

The court had on November 21 reserved its order on the PIL filed by Ram Gopal Singh Sisodia, a former Delhi MLA, challenging Tendulkar's nomination alleging that he does not possess any of the qualifications prescribed under Article 80 of the Constitution for being nominated to the Rajya Sabha.

"A bare reading of the article makes it clear that the person to be nominated should have special knowledge or practical experience in matters like literature, science, arts and social service, but the expertise so required for nomination is not confined to the specific illustrations given in the article," he had said in his petition.

In an affidavit to the High Court, the Centre had earlier said, "The special knowledge and practical experience required for the purpose is not confined to the said four categories only but would also include categories like sports, education, law, history, academics attainments, Indology, economics, journalism... or other similar fields of human endeavour."

Appearing for Sisodia, counsel R K Kapoor had told the bench that the Constitution allowed the government to nominate to the Rajya Sabha persons only from four fields - arts, science, literature and social science, and argued that the nomination of a sports person to the Rajya Sabha was unconstitutional.

Comments (+)