AAP leader Somnath Bharti on Saturday approached the Delhi High Court challenging BJP MP Bansuri Swaraj’s election in the Lok Sabha polls 2024 on the grounds of alleged corrupt practices. Justice Manmeet PS Arora is scheduled to hear the election petition on July 22.
The plea said while Bharti secured 3,74,815 votes, Swaraj got 4,53,185 votes as per the returning officer. They both contested from the New Delhi Parliamentary Constituency and Swaraj was declared as winner.
“The present election petition is being filed by the petitioner (Bharti) under Section 80 and 81 of the Representation of the People Act challenging the election of the respondent no.1 (Swaraj) as a Member of House of the people from the New Delhi Parliamentary Constituency on the grounds of ‘corrupt practices’ indulged into by the respondent no.1 , her election agent and other persons with the consent of the respondent during the course of the Lok Sabha election 2024 held on May 25, 2024,” the plea said.
The plea alleged that former AAP minister Raaj Kumar Anand, who was though a candidate set up by the Bahujan Samaj Party but in reality he was set up by Swaraj’s party to help her against the petitioner.
It said Anand was a minister in the Aam Aadmi Party‘s government in Delhi and was active in campaigning for Bharti till April 9 and suddenly he resigned from the party on April 10.
Anand contested the election on the ticket of Bahujan Samaj Party to help Swaraj by cutting into the vote share and later on July 10, he joined the BJP, the plea alleged.
“On the election day, that is, May 5, 2024, the petitioner, during his visits to different booths across New Delhi Parliamentary Constituency, was shocked to see that booth agents of the respondent no. 1 had her pamphlets displaying her ballot number, photo, election symbol and photo of PM Sri Narendra Modi and was showing the same to the voters who had lined up in the booth to vote and asking them to vote for Ballot no.1 and such an act certainly qualifies to be a corrupt practice. This was also reported to the respondent no. 3 (returning officer) but all in vain,” the plea claimed.
