Court dismisses plea to strike off witnesses, affirming statutory right to present evidence
In a significant ruling, the Himachal Pradesh High Court, presided over by Justice Virender Singh, has dismissed an application by Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi seeking to strike off witnesses proposed by Harsh Mahajan in an election petition. The court ruled that the respondent, Harsh Mahajan, retains a substantive statutory right to present evidence in support of his defense, a critical aspect for the just adjudication of the issues at hand.
The case revolves around the election of Harsh Mahajan to the Council of States from Himachal Pradesh, which Dr. Singhvi challenged as void, seeking his own declaration as the elected candidate. A pivotal point of contention arose when Dr. Singhvi moved an application under Section 87(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, aiming to delete names from Mahajan’s list of witnesses on grounds of alleged frivolity and delay tactics.
The court, however, emphasized that Mahajan's right to lead evidence is essential and protected under statutory law. The judgment highlighted that unless evidence is demonstrably frivolous or solely intended to delay proceedings, the respondent's right to present his case cannot be curtailed. The court found that the respondent's list of witnesses was filed in compliance with procedural requirements, and the purposes of the witnesses were clearly articulated, thereby dismissing the application.
The judgment underscores the importance of fair trial principles, where both parties must be afforded the opportunity to present relevant evidence. The court further noted that Dr. Singhvi's objections lacked specificity, failing to substantiate claims of the witnesses being unnecessary or vexatious.
This decision reinforces the legal principle that the scope of evidence in election petitions is determined by the issues framed, not by subjective interpretations of the opposing party. The court drew on precedents, including the Supreme Court ruling in Mange Ram v. Brij Mohan, which mandates advance filing of witness lists, a requirement Mahajan fulfilled.
The ruling mandates that the election petition will proceed with the examination of witnesses, ensuring a thorough and fair adjudication process. The court has scheduled the next hearing for April 20, 2026, directing that unnecessary adjournments be avoided to facilitate the timely resolution of the case.
Bottom Line:
Election Petition - Application under Section 87(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, to strike off/delete proposed witnesses from the list of witnesses - Dismissed on the ground that the respondent has the right to lead evidence and the purpose of the witnesses was clearly mentioned in the list.
Statutory provision(s): Representation of the People Act, 1951 Section 87(1), Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order XVI Rule 1
Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi v. Harsh Mahajan, (Himachal Pradesh) : Law Finder Doc id # 2883222
