SC seeks AAP MLA’s reply on petition over 2020 elections

The Supreme Court on Monday sought the response of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) legislator Vishesh Ravi on a petition challenging his election from Delhi’s Karol Bagh constituency in the 2020 Assembly polls over alleged discrepancies in his educational qualifications

The Supreme Court on Monday sought the response of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) legislator Vishesh Ravi on a petition challenging his election from Delhi’s Karol Bagh constituency in the 2020 Assembly polls over alleged discrepancies in his educational qualifications.

The top court also took note of the fact that the MLA had been re-elected. (HT)

A bench of justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan issued notice on a plea filed by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Yogender Chandolia, who had lost to Ravi in the 2020 election. The court agreed to examine a Delhi High Court order that dismissed Chandolia’s election petition on April 24, holding that it had become infructuous after Ravi’s term ended and fresh Assembly elections were held in 2025. Ravi was re-elected from Karol Bagh in the 2025 polls.

The top court also took note of the fact that Ravi had been re-elected.

“Fresh elections have already taken place. He has succeeded as well,” the bench observed. Justice Nagarathna also noted that there had been a period when degrees issued by Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) were not recognised.

The court was also told that it was already hearing a similar matter concerning the election of former Delhi minister Jitender Singh Tomar, who is accused of making a false declaration about his educational qualifications.

Chandolia had contested the 2020 Assembly election against Ravi and lost by more than 67,000 votes. His petition alleged discrepancies in Ravi’s educational declarations across successive elections.

According to Chandolia, Ravi had declared in 2013 that he had a B.Com degree. In 2015, however, his Form 26 showed that he was “pursuing BA Programme”. In the 2020 election, Ravi declared himself to be a Class 10 pass.

Chandolia argued that the discrepancies amounted to a false declaration and that Ravi’s election should therefore be set aside. He contended that furnishing false information in an election affidavit constituted a corrupt practice under election law.

The Delhi High Court, however, had rejected the argument. It held that Section 123(4) dealt with false statements made by a candidate about another candidate with the intention of affecting that person’s electoral prospects, and did not cover a candidate’s own declaration regarding educational qualifications.

The high court further held that Ravi’s 2020 term had already ended and that he had subsequently been re-elected in 2025. Therefore, even if the allegations were proved, the election petition could not result in Ravi being disqualified from the completed election.

“Even if the case is tried and the allegations are found to be correct, then also, the Respondent no.1 (Ravi) cannot be held guilty of corrupt practice in light of the pleadings made,” the high court had said. It added that since the term of the Assembly had ended and fresh elections had been held in 2025, the election petition was liable to be declared infructuous.