SC urged to hear itself two pleas against Sachin`s nomination
New Delhi: A former Delhi MLA on Wednesday moved the Supreme Court seeking transfer to it the two petitions pending with the Delhi and the Allahabad high courts and challenging the nomination of batting maestro Sachin Tendulkar to the Rajya Sabha.
Former Delhi legislator Ram Gopal Singh Sisodia moved the apex court through advocate R K Kapoor and sought the transfer of the two petitions from the two high courts saying there was likelihood of conflicting judgements from the two high courts.
Sisodia made the transfer plea, invoking Article 139 of the Constitution which empowers the apex court to transfer to itself any case pending before a high court either on its own or on a plea made by the Attorney General of India or by a party to any such case that such questions are substantial questions of general importance.
Sisodia sought the transfer of two anti-Sachin petitions from the two high courts to the apex court arguing that "there is likelihood that there may be contradictory judgements by the two high courts, while the points involved in them are of substantial public importance and the facts and submissions set out in both the petitions are similar."
"It would be in the interest of things that both the writ petitions are transferred before this (apex) court and final interpretation is given to the provisions of article 80 of the Constitution of India," said Sisodia`s petition.
Sisodia, had challenged earlier before the Delhi High Court, Sachin`s nomination on the ground that he does not have any of the qualifications prescribed under Article 80 of the Constitution for being nominated to the Rajya Sabha.
He had contended that Constitution allowed the government to select from only four categories - arts, science, social science and literature. The selection of a sports person was unconstitutional, he had said.
While refusing to restrain Sachin Tendulkar from taking oath as Rajya Sabha member, a division bench of the Delhi High Court on May 16 had asked Additional Solicitor General A S Chandhiok to get instructions from the government as to whether the sports category was covered under the Constitution while nominating a sports person to the Rajya Sabha
Chandhiok had argued that the power has been exercised by the President of India and the court cannot interfere with it.
Earlier on May 14, the Supreme Court had refused to quash 39-year-old batting maestro`s nomination to the Upper House and had asked Sisodia to rather approach the high court with his plea.
In his petition, the former Delhi MLA had raised several questions, including whether a person can be nominated as a Rajya Sabha member under clause 1(a) read with clause (3) of Article 80 of the Constitution even if he does not have special knowledge or practical experience as enumerated.
It was also submitted that "Tax payers money cannot go into the pockets of those who are not eligible to be nominated as members of the Rajya Sabha. The petitioner is an income-tax payee and the money contributed by citizens must be spent for constitutional purposes only."