This Article is From Aug 20, 2020

High Court Lists Plea Challenging Arvind Kejriwal's Election For November

The petitioner - Ramesh Khatri - in his pleas sought barring both political leaders from contesting elections for next six years on the ground that they allegedly concealed information about their poll expenses and engaged in corrupt practices.

High Court Lists Plea Challenging Arvind Kejriwal's Election For November

A plea has been moved in High Court challenging the elections of Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal

New Delhi:

Two pleas have been moved in the Delhi High Court challenging the elections of Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and BJP leader Vijender Gupta to the Delhi Assembly on the ground that they allegedly furnished false information regarding their poll expenses.

The petitions were listed before Justice C Hari Shankar who today renotified them for hearing on November 25 after the petitioner did not appear for arguments even after the matters were taken up twice for hearing via video conferencing.

The petitioner - Ramesh Khatri - in his pleas sought barring both political leaders from contesting elections for next six years on the ground that they allegedly concealed information about their poll expenses and engaged in corrupt practices.

He has sought that the elections of Arvind Kejriwal and Vijender Gupta, who is referred to as Vijender Kumar in the petition, be declared as null and void for alleged violation of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and the Conduct Of Election Rules, 1961.

In the petition against Arvind Kejriwal, the petitioner said he had contested against the AAP chief in the assembly elections held this year.

The plea against Vijender Gupta has been filed by Mr Khatri as a voter of the constituency - Rohini Assembly Constituency 13 - from where the BJP leader contested and won.

In both his pleas, the petitioner has claimed that neither of the political leaders disclosed accurate day-to-day expenses of their poll campaign in the expenditure register.

He has also alleged that both of them spent money way beyond the prescribed limit under the law and the excess expenditure was not disclosed to the returning officer.
 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

.