|
The Delhi High Court has stayed the result of the election of the Basketball body. This matter pertains to the election of office bearers of the Basketball Federation of India (BFI). Two petitions have been moved by two factions of candidates.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav on Thursday stayed the operation of two letters of February 10 and 13, 2022. The first letter was issued by the Returning Officer rejecting the nomination. Later on, the result of various positions were declared without holding the election of BFI. The court has issued notice to the respondents including BFI, the Ministry of Sports and Youth Affairs, and Returning Officer. They are directed to file their reply within three working days. The matter has been listed on March 1 for further hearing. Meanwhile, the court has directed the petitioners to implead deemed elected candidates as per form 6 issued by the RO. After hearing the submissions, the bench stayed the operations of the Letter of February 13, 2023, issued by the Returning Officer (RO) declaring the results of the elections of the Basketball Federation. The existing office bearers of BFI whose term is expiring on February 18, 2023, are restrained from taking any policy decision after February 18, except with the leave of this court, the court directed on February 16. The petitioner Aadhav Arjuna and 14 others have challenged the declaration of the election results in favour of the other faction as being unopposed. Other petitions have been moved by 21 petitioners challenging the declaration of the results by the RO with respect to various positions of BFI. It was stated that the election was supposed to be held on 18.02.2023. After the rejection of the nomination filed by the 14 opposite candidates, a letter declaring the result as unopposed was issued by the RO without holding an election. Senior Advocates Mukul Rothagi, Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Rajiv Nayar, Dayan Krishnan, Sandeep Sethi and Advocates Mahendhran, Ganesh Kanna, Raghunatha Sethupathi and Sabari were on record for the petitioners. The counsels on behalf of the petitioner argued that the declaration was not in accordance with the guidelines of the National Sports Code thereby the action of the RO is illegal and against the fundamental rights of the rejected contestants. Senior advocate Mukul Rohtagi argued that one candidate can file the nomination wrongly. How all 14 candidates can file their nomination papers wrong? The Nomination Form filed by the petitioners were in substance the same as those provided in the Model Election Guidelines with only the English being slightly different from said form. Thus, there is no substantial difference in the form provided by RO and the nomination form prescribed by the Model Election Guidelines, the RO could not have taken advantage of his own wrongful conduct in conducting the election of Federation to the appointment of office bearers of Federation as "unopposed", the petition stated. (ANI)
|
