AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anil Kumar Choudhary, J
(i) Whether the election petition as framed and filed is maintainable?
(ii) Whether there is cause of action for filing this Election Petition?
(iii) Whether the respondent nos.1 and 2 have committed the corrupt practice of 'undue influence' as per definition under Section 123 (2) (a) (1) of the Representatives of People Act, 1951?
(iv) Whether Shri Raghubar Das, the then Chief Minister has set up Sri Anurag Gupta, IPS, the then Additional Director General of Police (Special Branch) to manage the horse trading and by way of corrupt practice both the respondents won the election of Rajya Sabha?
(v) Whether Mr. Anurag Gupta made a telephonic message to the petitioner and her husband Sri. Yogendra Sao to visit his official chamber three days prior to the date of poll and offered a bribe of Rs.1,00,00,000/- to the petitioner and her husband in case, the petitioner refrains herself from voting?
(vi) Whether Mr. Anurag Gupta said that in case the petitioner refused to accept the offer then she and her husband shall be indulged in false criminal cases?
(vii) Whether on 10.06.2016, at 10:00 hours, Mr. Anurag Gupta, ADGP, Special Branch called the petitioner and her husband in his residence and again offered Rs.1,00,00,000/- in cash in case the petitioner refrains herself from voting?
(viii) Whether Mr. Ajay Kumar, the Official Advisor to the then Chief Minister Mr. Raghubar Das, called the petitioner and her husband Sri Yogendra Sao in his residence and requested the petitioner to accept the offer amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- and to abstain from the booth on the day of voting ?
(ix) Whether the then Chief Minister, Sri Raghubar Das accompanied by Mr. Ajay Kumar, the Official Advisor visited the residence of the petitioner at around 07:00 pm on 10.06.2016 and requested the petitioner and her husband that in case the petitioner refrains herself from voting then she will get a sum of Rs.5,00,00,000/- in cash and all the false cases against her and her husband will be withdrawn and there will be no further raid in order to arrest them?
(x) Whether the aforesaid actions of the then Chief Minister, Mr. Anurag Gupta and Mr. Ajay Kumar amounts to interference with free exercise of the electoral rights of the MLAs which is a corrupt practice of 'undue influence' as defined under Section 123 (2) (a) (1) of the Representatives of People Act, 1951?
(xi) Whether on date of polling on 11.06.2016, on the instruction of the then Chief Minister, the Senior Police Officers surrounded the residence of the petitioner at Dhurwa so that the petitioner may not be able to come from her house for casting her vote in the Rajya Sabha election?
(xii) Whether Mr. Ajay Kumar stopped and obstructed the petitioner at her arrival at the place of voting by saying that whatever has been promised and offered by the then Chief Minister shall be fulfilled if she stops for just one hour and refrains herself from voting?
(xiii) Whether because of similar play, two MLAs were not able to cast their respective votes in the said Rajya Sabha election?
(xiv) Whether the respondents or anyone else on their behalf entrusted the alleged task of work out the strategy or finding out ways and means for success of the respondents in the election of Rajya Sabha which took place on 11.06.2016 to Sri Raghubar Das, the then Chief Minister?
(xv) Whether the respondents ever asked or gave their consent directly or indirectly to anyone to offer any amount of money or any kind of threat to anyone for securing votes of anyone electoral or for making any voter MLA for abstaining for voting in Rajya Sabha election in dispute?
(xvi) Whether the grounds of undue influence taken by the petitioner is vague?
(xvii) Whether the election petition has been properly verified?
(xviii) Whether the election petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party in the shape of Mr. Basant Soren?
(xix) Whether the petitioner has no locus-standii to challenge the election of the respondents as the members of Rajya Sabha?
(xx) Whether the respondents ever authorized anyone to commit any corrupt practice or to do the activity as alleged in the election petition?
(xxi) Whether 34 electoral members were sufficient to win the two seats for Bhartiya Janta Party irrespective of the fact whether the petitioner casted her vote and the alleged two absentee electoral refrained from voting?
(xxii) To what relief/reliefs, the petitioner is entitled to?