The Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed AAP leader Somnath Bharti’s request for additional time to respond to BJP MP Bansuri Swaraj’s statement, emphasizing the importance of adhering to legal timelines even during busy election periods. Justice Anish Dayal clarified that election duties do not exempt litigants from complying with statutory deadlines.
The legal contention arose from Bharti’s challenge to Swaraj’s election victory in the New Delhi Lok Sabha seat during the 2024 polls, where he accused her of “corrupt practices.” Bharti’s application stated he had not yet received Swaraj’s reply to his plea. However, Justice Dayal pointed out that the statement had indeed been served to Bharti and his proxy counsel, who had initially requested an extension on December 9, 2024, to file a response.
When Bharti, appearing in person, claimed his involvement in elections as a reason for the delay, the court was quick to question, “Which law says that because a litigant was busy in election, the limitation law will not apply?” The court further noted that there were no issues with email communications sent to Bharti on October 19 and November 22, 2024, and criticized him for not maintaining adequate communication with his counsel.
The High Court, in its order, decisively rejected Bharti’s plea to file a replication at this stage, marking a strict stance on the necessity of following legal procedures without exceptions for electoral engagements. The court stressed that it is not merely a “post office” and highlighted the obligation of parties to ensure communication with their legal representatives to manage and respond to court proceedings effectively.
Opposing Bharti’s petition, Swaraj argued that his allegations were baseless and lacked the concrete evidence required under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act. She contended that the petition did not validly establish any grounds to declare her election null and void, describing the allegations as “extremely vague, ambiguous, and lacking in material facts.”
Bharti had accused Swaraj and her associates of engaging in corrupt practices by distributing pamphlets with her ballot number, photo, election symbol, and a photograph of Prime Minister Narendra Modi on election day, which he claimed was an attempt to improperly influence voters. He also alleged that Swaraj’s campaign expenses exceeded legal limits and that her campaign was religiously biased.
