NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Monday underscored the importance of adhering to legal deadlines, dismissing AAP leader Somnath Bharti’s request to submit a reply to BJP MP Bansuri Swaraj’s statement in his petition contesting her Lok Sabha victory. The court made it clear that preoccupation with elections does not exempt litigants from statutory timelines.
During the hearing, Justice Anish Dayal noted that Swaraj’s statement had already been served to Bharti, and his proxy counsel had sought additional time to respond on December 9, 2024. Bharti, who was defeated by Swaraj in the New Delhi parliamentary seat, argued that he had not received her response to his allegations of electoral misconduct.
Swaraj’s legal team objected to Bharti’s plea, pointing out that the 30-day deadline for filing a response had expired. When asked whether he had reviewed the court order, Bharti claimed that he had been occupied with election-related commitments and that his proxy counsel had made an incorrect submission.
The court, however, did not accept this reasoning. “Is there any provision in the law that allows a litigant to ignore statutory limitations simply because they were involved in an election?” the bench questioned. The court further noted that emails sent by the respondent on October 19, 2024, and November 22, 2024, had been successfully delivered. It emphasised that the petitioner was responsible for maintaining communication with his legal representatives.
Dismissing the request to submit a reply at this stage, the court remarked, “A litigant cannot evade procedural requirements by blaming their proxy counsel. The judicial process does not function as a mere intermediary; parties must actively ensure the exchange of necessary documents.”
In her response, Swaraj argued that Bharti’s petition had been filed beyond the stipulated 45-day period and failed to comply with the legal mandates of Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act. She maintained that the allegations were “vague, unsupported by material facts, and completely unfounded.” “Without specific evidence to substantiate the claims, the petition does not establish a valid cause of action and should therefore be dismissed,” Swaraj contended.
Bharti’s petition, filed under Sections 80 and 81 of the Act, accused Swaraj, her election agent, and others of engaging in corrupt practices. He alleged that on polling day, her agents distributed pamphlets bearing her photograph, ballot number, election symbol, and an image of Prime Minister Narendra Modi to sway voters at polling stations. Bharti also claimed that Swaraj had exceeded the permitted campaign expenditure and that her electoral campaign was primarily religious in nature.