Introduction:

In a notable development from the Madhya Pradesh High Court, a significant ruling has been made against an incumbent Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) for her attempts to delay legal proceedings in an election petition. The case in question is Kundan Malviya v. Smt. Kanchan Tanve & Ors. (EP No. 2/2024), where the Congress leader, Kundan Malviya, had filed an election petition challenging the election of Khandwa MLA, Kanchan Tanve. The petition was brought before the single-judge bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, who imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on the MLA for her deliberate attempts to obstruct the legal process.

Arguments of Both Sides:

Kundan Malviya’s counsel, Adv. Arvind Shrivastava, argued that the respondent MLA had been deliberately attempting to delay the proceedings of the election petition. The petitioner contended that despite receiving the notice on time, the MLA failed to file her written statement, thereby violating the statutory provisions under Section 86(6) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which mandates that election petitions should proceed on a day-to-day basis. Furthermore, the petitioner highlighted that the MLA’s actions constituted a ‘fraud on the court’ aimed at achieving an unjust delay in the proceedings.

On the other hand, the MLA’s counsel, Adv. Anvesh Shrivastava, contended that the court had incorrectly deemed the MLA to have been served with the notice before the actual acknowledgment of receipt. The counsel argued that the court’s decision to proceed ex-parte on May 13, 2024, was based on a faulty interpretation of the service dates. Additionally, the counsel raised the point that the MLA was unable to appear on the specified date due to ongoing polling in the Khandwa Constituency, although it was noted that personal appearance was not necessary as a counsel could have appeared on her behalf.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia’s bench delivered a comprehensive judgment in this matter. The court unequivocally rejected the MLA’s claim that she was not properly served and emphasized that the notice was served as per the online service report and office notes, which indicated the correct date of service as April 23, 2024. The court criticized the MLA’s attempts to misrepresent facts and delay the proceedings, labeling them as deliberate attempts to frustrate the legal process.

The court also held that the MLA’s failure to appear or file a response despite being served in accordance with the statutory requirements was a direct contravention of Section 86(6) of the 1951 Act. The bench’s decision to impose the Rs 50,000 cost was based on two primary grounds: the MLA’s intentional delay of the proceedings and the baseless allegations made against the court.

Moreover, while the MLA was set ex-parte for her failure to respond, the court decided to set aside this order subject to the payment of the imposed cost. This decision was made to facilitate the ongoing amendment application filed by the petitioner, which required a fresh notice to be issued if the amendment was allowed.

The matter is scheduled to be heard again on July 4, 2024, to further deliberate on the amendment application and continue with the election petition proceedings.