The Kerala High Court on Tuesday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) petition alleging that Union Minister Rajeev Chandrasekhar had filed false affidavits in his nomination form for contesting the upcoming Lok Sabha elections from Thiruvananthapuram constituency and that no action has been taken by the election authorities on the complaint lodged in this regard.

A Division Bench comprising Justice V G Arun and Justice S Manu refused to invoke the writ jurisdiction stating that once the nomination of a candidate is accepted by the Returning Officer (RO), the remedy for the aggrieved person is to file an election petition before the High Court, and not a PIL.

“We are of the opinion that whether the Returning Officer should have considered the complaint and passed a reasoned order cannot be considered at this stage. The remedy of the petitioners if they are aggrieved by the affidavit filed by a candidate is to file an election petition,” the court said.

The court also noted that there is no legal provision mandating that the returning officer should give a reasoned explanation for his decision on a complaint regarding discrepancies in the election affidavit of a candidate.

Congress leader Avani Bansal and Renjith Thomas in their petition alleged that Rajeev Chandrasekhar deliberately omitted his assets including his properties, luxury cars and private jets and also grossly undervalued his shares in various companies.

“The nomination submitted by the 4th respondent (Chandrasekhar) is in utter and repeated violation of the relevant provision of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1950, the Conduct of Election Rules 1961, and as per the compendium given on the Election Commission of India’s website,” the petition said

In the petition, it is alleged that no action has been taken by the Election Officer and the Chief Electoral Officer even after prima facie evidence was given against Minister Rajeev Chandrasekar regarding the filing of a false affidavit along with the nomination paper.

In their plea, the petitioners further say that the Returning Officer is duty-bound to give a speaking order against the complaint raised against Minister Rajeev Chandrashekar regarding the filing of the false affidavit.

It was alleged that the status of the complaint on the website of the Election Commission of India merely shows admission without giving a written reasoned response to the complaint.

The petitioners sought a direction to the Election Officer to pass a reasoned order on the complaint filed by the petitioners regarding the filing of the false affidavit by Minister Rajeev Chandrasekar.

During the hearing of the case, Senior Advocate George Poonthottam, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the Returning Officer deliberately failed to consider the complaint on the day of scrutiny. The petitioner received a communication only yesterday, stating that the complaint has been forwarded to the Deputy Director of Income Tax for investigation, he said.

The Standing Counsel for Election Commission submitted that once the nomination of a candidate is accepted by the Returning Officer, the remedy for the aggrieved person is to file an election petition before the High Court and not a PIL under Article 226