<p>New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice on a plea by former Union Minister Maneka Gandhi, questioning validity of the Allahabad High Court's order, which dismissed her election petition against successful Samajwadi Party candidate Rambhual Nishad in the Sultanpur constituency in 2024 Lok Sabha elections.</p><p>A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh, however, declined to consider her plea challenging validity of Section 81 of the Representation of People Act, 1951.</p>.Maneka Gandhi, other activists urge Bihar to check animal sacrifice, illegal transportation to Nepal.<p>The High Court had dismissed her petition for being barred by Section 81 read with Section 86 of the Act of 1951.</p><p>Senior advocate Sidharth Luthra for Gandhi said that the provisions need to be revisited. He said the question was if all the criminal cases pending against a candidate could be suppressed.</p><p>The court, however, said entertaining this prayer would amount to legislate and would open floodgates of election petitions. On this, the counsel sought permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to raise the plea in the civil appeal.</p><p>Gandhi lost to Nishad by a margin of 43,174 votes in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections.</p><p>She challenged the limitation of 45 days imposed for filing an election petition.</p><p>In her appeal, Gandhi questioned correctness of the August 14, 2024 order of the Allahabad High Court dismissing her election petition challenging the election of Nishad for being time-barred.</p><p>The high court held her petition was filed after the deadline of 45 days, the statutory period for filing election petition before the high court, and hence, the plea cannot be heard on merit.</p><p>Gandhi contended that Nishad had deprived the voters of their right to know his full criminal history and hence, the delay in filing the petition should be condoned.</p><p>Her plea claimed that 12 criminal cases were pending against Nishad but he had given information on only eight in his affidavit.</p><p>Rejecting Gandhi's plea, the high court had said, "This election petition being time-barred by Section 81 read with Section 86 of the Representation of People Act 1951 and Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure is liable to be dismissed."</p>
<p>New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice on a plea by former Union Minister Maneka Gandhi, questioning validity of the Allahabad High Court's order, which dismissed her election petition against successful Samajwadi Party candidate Rambhual Nishad in the Sultanpur constituency in 2024 Lok Sabha elections.</p><p>A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh, however, declined to consider her plea challenging validity of Section 81 of the Representation of People Act, 1951.</p>.Maneka Gandhi, other activists urge Bihar to check animal sacrifice, illegal transportation to Nepal.<p>The High Court had dismissed her petition for being barred by Section 81 read with Section 86 of the Act of 1951.</p><p>Senior advocate Sidharth Luthra for Gandhi said that the provisions need to be revisited. He said the question was if all the criminal cases pending against a candidate could be suppressed.</p><p>The court, however, said entertaining this prayer would amount to legislate and would open floodgates of election petitions. On this, the counsel sought permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to raise the plea in the civil appeal.</p><p>Gandhi lost to Nishad by a margin of 43,174 votes in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections.</p><p>She challenged the limitation of 45 days imposed for filing an election petition.</p><p>In her appeal, Gandhi questioned correctness of the August 14, 2024 order of the Allahabad High Court dismissing her election petition challenging the election of Nishad for being time-barred.</p><p>The high court held her petition was filed after the deadline of 45 days, the statutory period for filing election petition before the high court, and hence, the plea cannot be heard on merit.</p><p>Gandhi contended that Nishad had deprived the voters of their right to know his full criminal history and hence, the delay in filing the petition should be condoned.</p><p>Her plea claimed that 12 criminal cases were pending against Nishad but he had given information on only eight in his affidavit.</p><p>Rejecting Gandhi's plea, the high court had said, "This election petition being time-barred by Section 81 read with Section 86 of the Representation of People Act 1951 and Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure is liable to be dismissed."</p>
