IMPHAL, Oct 1: In a sensational judgment predicted to have wide implications, the Supreme Court today ruled that a court case pending in the High Court of Manipur since April 19, 2012, pertaining to a charge that sitting MLA of the 27-Moirang Assembly Constituency, Mairembam Prithviraj had furnished false affidavits in his nomination paper for the election to the current 10th Manipur Legislative Assembly held in January 2012, be disposed by end of February 2016.
The judgment is an admonition on the manner the respondent in the case, Mairembam Prithviraj has been using his clout to repeatedly have the case adjourned, but equally an adverse commentary on how a single bench of the Manipur High Court has been allowing this drama to carry on, thereby denying justice in the case.
The case against the sitting MLA was filed by Pukhrem Sharatchandra Singh, who had also contest the election against Prithviraj on the Nationalist Congress Party, NCP, ticket, but lost to his Congress(I) rival Prithviraj.
When his appeal in the Manipur High Court was kept adjourned inordinately, Sharatchandra took the matter to the Supreme Court, which made its ruling on October 1, 2015.
The Supreme Court ruling noted that the Sharatchandra had `objected to the nomination of the respondent as per Section 36(2) of the Act on the ground that he (Prithviraj) had failed to file the proper affidavit as prescribed under Article 173 of the Constitution and further the affidavit was a forged one..`
Sharatchandra also charged that Prithviraj`™s claim in the affidavit that `his highest educational qualification is MBA, and he had passed out from the Mysore University` is not true. With this `The appallent challenged the election before the High Court of Manipur at Imphal in Election Petition No.1 of 2012.`
The Supreme Court ruling also said that Prithviraj made a written response in the High Court case only two years after the charge was filed.
Since then, he has been through his counsel, filing a number of miscellaneous applications to have the Manipur High Court adjourn the case. The SC judgment lists 10 of these miscellaneous applications by the respondent, and a single judge bench of the Manipur High Court has been admitting them, thereby keeping the case pending without any result.
In 2014, when the case was not moving at all in the Manipur High Court, the appellant took the case to the Supreme Court in Misc. Case E.P. No. 7 of 2014, seeking the disposal of his election petition.
The Supreme Court ruling cites several cases where the rulings were that prompt disposal of election cases is paramount to the interest of justice and delays can result positively in injustice. Citing Satya v Dhula Ram case, it said `The very object of expeditious trial will be defeated if the presentation of the election petition should be treated casually and lightly permitting all kinds of devices to delay the ultimate trial.`
In another case, the ruling said, `an election petition shall be disposed of as far as practicable within six months from the date of presentation of the election petition as required by Section 86(7) of the Act.`
Citing yet another case it said `if the vexatious applications are entertained, it would defeat the very object of expeditious disposal of election petition as envisaged in Section 86(7) of the Act.`
It also said, `In the case at hand, as we have stated, the elected candidate has been taking time at his own pleasure and leisure and filing applications as he desired giving vent to his whim and fancy and the Court has granted adjournment in an extremely liberal manner.`
The Supreme Court ruling also said its direction to the Manipur High Court to dispose of the case by the end of February 2016 is not just in the interest of justice, but also of the faith of the common man in democracy.