Karnataka HC notice to ECI on plea seeking prosecution of Srirangapatna MLA Bandisidde Gowda for for alleged non-disclosure of assets in election affidavit

You don’t have any Active Subscription.

Account subscription benefits alongside Premium Stories, Editorials, Opinions and more. Unlock these with Subscription

A view of the High Court of Karnataka.

The High Court of Karnataka on Thursday ordered issue of notice to the Election Commission of India (ECI) and MLA for Srirangapatna A.B. Ramesha Bandisidde Gowda, on a petition which has questioned a special court rejecting criminal prosecution of the MLA for allegedly not disclosing certain immovable properties in his affidavit for the 2023 Assembly elections.

Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde passed the order on the petition filed by M.D. Adish Sagar, a voter in Mysuru.

The special court of magistrate for criminal cases against former and present MPs and MLAs on July 27 rejected the petitioner’s complaint as “not maintainable” holding that only the Election Commission of India (ECI) can lodge a complaint under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

The petitioner has sought a direction from the High Court for restoration of the private complaint for consideration on merits or a direction to the ECI to treat the petitioner’s complaint as a formal complaint under Section 125A and take a reasoned decision on prosecution of the MLA within a time-bound period.

The petitioner has alleged that the MLA failed to disclose in his election affidavit two of his immovable properties situated in Mysuru. It has been claimed in the petition that the petitioner had initially issued notice to the MLA, who admitted ownership but cited contractual arrangements through general power of attorney and liabilities in favour of a third party, as a reason for non-disclosure in the affidavit.

Contending that the MLA was the owner of the properties despite contractual agreement, the petitioner had lodged a complaint with the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO), Karnataka, for initiation of action against the MLA. When no response was received, the petitioner had filed a private complaint with the special court.

Further hearing was adjourned till October 15.

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.