The Supreme Court in the case Dr Mandati Thirupathi Reddy v. Secretary General P.C. Mody And Ors observed and refused to entertain the petition filled Dr Mandati Thirupathi Reddy, seeking to file for nomination for the ensuing election of President of India. The returning officer of Secretary General, Lok Sabha, Parliament House, rejected the same.
The Court remarked that by this Court, No Case to interfere is made out, the court dismissed the plea.
The vacation bench comprising of Justice Surya Kant and the Justice J.B. Pardiwala observed and noted that the petitioner’s nomination paper did not comply with the requirements as mentioned under Section 5B(1)(a) of the Presidential and the Vice-Presidential Election Act, 1952.
The Court observed that it is undeniable that the nomination paper sought to be submitted by the petitioner is not in conformity with S5B(1)(a) of the 1952 Act.
Section 5B(1)(a) of the 1952 Act states:
Section 5B – The Presentation of nomination papers and requirements for a valid nomination .—(1) On or before the date appointed under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 4 states that each candidate shall be either in person or by any of his proposers or seconders that the hours three o’ clock in the afternoon and of eleven o’ clock in the forenoon should be deliver to the returning officer at the place specified in this behalf in the public notice issued under section 5 in the prescribed form, a nomination paper completed and subscribed by the candidate as assenting to the nomination, and
And in case of Presidential election, also by at least fifty electors as proposers and at least fifty electors as seconders;”
The Court observed while reading out his educational and professional qualifications from his petition and the eligibility for filling the nomination, It was submitted by the petitioner appearing as party-in-person that the petitioner has in-depth understanding of the Constitution, which is essential for holding the prestigious post of the President of India. The petitioner appraised the Bench that he is an Advocate in service has three international honorary doctorates and secured 72 marks in his LLM paper on Constitutional Law: New Challenges. It was also submitted by him that the candidates well-versed in the law of the land should be given importance rather than those politically strong.
The bench refused to interfere with the decision of the returning officer, while observing the rejection of the nomination did not suffer from any infirmity.
The Court noted, in view of the present matter that the rejection of the nomination form of the petition does not suffer any infirmity.
The Court observed that it is undeniable that the nomination paper sought to be submitted by the petitioner is not in conformity with S5B(1)(a) of the 1952 Act. The bench refused to interfere with the decision of the returning officer, while observing the rejection of the nomination did not suffer from any infirmity.