<p>An Ahmedabad-resident has approached the Supreme Court challenging a Gujarat High Court order dismissing a plea for action against Prime Minister Narendra Modi for “concealing” his marital status in his nomination papers to Maninagar Assembly seat.<br /><br /></p>.<p>In a special leave petition filed by advocate Prashant Bhushan, Nishant Deshdipak Varma contended that the high court had on July 3 dismissed his plea merely on the grounds of delay though no such thing could be attributed to him.<br /><br />He submitted that the complaint in a trial court was filed on April 11, 2014, a day after Modi filed his nomination papers for the Lok Sabha polls, declaring his marital status.<br /><br />“No separate application for condonation of delay was required, as the period of limitation, under section 469 of the Criminal Procedure Code would commence from ‘the first date on which such offence comes to the knowledge’ of the petitioner,” the petition said. <br /><br />The petitioner contended that in the instant case, the trial court ought to have taken cognisance of the offence under section 125 A (iii) of the Representation of People Act, 1951, for “concealment of information”.“The high court erred in not appreciating that a voter has the elementary right to know full particulars of a candidate who is to represent him in Parliament and such right to get information is universally recognised natural right flowing from the concept of democracy and is an integral part of Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution,” the petitioner claimed.<br /><br />He cited various apex court verdicts upholding such right in the Union of India vs Association for Democratic Reforms; People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and Another vs Union of India and Resurgence India vs Election Commission of India.</p>
<p>An Ahmedabad-resident has approached the Supreme Court challenging a Gujarat High Court order dismissing a plea for action against Prime Minister Narendra Modi for “concealing” his marital status in his nomination papers to Maninagar Assembly seat.<br /><br /></p>.<p>In a special leave petition filed by advocate Prashant Bhushan, Nishant Deshdipak Varma contended that the high court had on July 3 dismissed his plea merely on the grounds of delay though no such thing could be attributed to him.<br /><br />He submitted that the complaint in a trial court was filed on April 11, 2014, a day after Modi filed his nomination papers for the Lok Sabha polls, declaring his marital status.<br /><br />“No separate application for condonation of delay was required, as the period of limitation, under section 469 of the Criminal Procedure Code would commence from ‘the first date on which such offence comes to the knowledge’ of the petitioner,” the petition said. <br /><br />The petitioner contended that in the instant case, the trial court ought to have taken cognisance of the offence under section 125 A (iii) of the Representation of People Act, 1951, for “concealment of information”.“The high court erred in not appreciating that a voter has the elementary right to know full particulars of a candidate who is to represent him in Parliament and such right to get information is universally recognised natural right flowing from the concept of democracy and is an integral part of Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution,” the petitioner claimed.<br /><br />He cited various apex court verdicts upholding such right in the Union of India vs Association for Democratic Reforms; People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and Another vs Union of India and Resurgence India vs Election Commission of India.</p>
