The Himachal Pradesh High Court on Friday ruled that election petitions are inherently trial-based in nature, making the examination of witnesses and evidence integral to a fair adjudication process. The court dismissed an application filed by senior Congress leader Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who had sought to bypass the evidentiary stage in his challenge against the Rajya Sabha election results of February 2024.
The legal dispute stems from the high-profile Rajya Sabha election held on February 27, 2024. Despite the Congress party holding a majority in the Himachal Pradesh Assembly, their candidate, noted lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi, lost to the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) candidate, Harsh Mahajan.
The election resulted in a 34-34 tie after six Congress MLAs and three independents cross-voted in favor of the BJP candidate. Following the tie, the winner was determined by a draw of lots. Under the specific procedure implemented by the election officer, the candidate whose name was drawn was declared the loser, resulting in Mahajan’s victory and Singhvi’s defeat.
Singhvi subsequently filed a petition challenging the interpretation of the rules governing the draw of lots, arguing that the practice of declaring the person drawn as the loser “defies common sense, old tradition and practices” observed globally in tie-breaking scenarios.
During the proceedings, Singhvi moved an application seeking to skip the necessity of witness examination and cross-examination. His counsel argued that the matter was primarily a question of legal interpretation regarding the rules and did not require lengthy evidentiary proceedings.
Conversely, Vikrant Thakur, counsel for Rajya Sabha member Harsh Mahajan, maintained that the list of witnesses submitted was valid and in accordance with established legal procedures. The respondent argued that a full trial was necessary to uncover the truth and ensure a just outcome.
The High Court observed that the nature of an election petition necessitates a thorough trial process. The bench emphasized that evidentiary scrutiny is not a mere formality but an essential component of justice in election-related disputes.
The court noted that the list of witnesses provided on behalf of Harsh Mahajan was “appropriate, valid and in accordance with legal procedure.” It reaffirmed that election trials cannot bypass the stage of witness examination, as it is through this process that facts are verified and the integrity of the adjudication is maintained.
By dismissing Singhvi’s application, the court cleared the way for a full trial involving the examination and cross-examination of witnesses.
Reacting to the decision, Harsh Mahajan stated that the ruling represents a failure of the Congress leadership’s attempt to “suppress the truth” and avoid a fair trial. “When facts are weak, Congress runs away from evidence, but we stand firmly with the truth and are ready to face every question, on every platform,” Mahajan said in a statement.
Vikrant Thakur characterized the ruling as a “major relief” for Mahajan, ensuring that the case will proceed with a comprehensive review of all facts and testimonies.
