New Delhi: Refusing to quash batting maestro Sachin Tendulkar`s nomination to the Rajya Sabha, the Supreme Court asked petitioner Ram Gopal Singh Sisodia, a former Delhi MLA to rather approach the high court with his plea.
The petitioner had challenged the nomination on the ground that Sachin was not entitled to nomination as Article 80 prescribes that only persons of eminence in the fields of art, literature and science are to be nominated to the Rajya Sabha.
A vacation bench of justices Deepak Verma and SJ Mukhopadhya asked counsel RK Kapoor as to why he directly approached the apex court instead of invoking the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court.
"Why did you come to us directly under Article 32. You could have approached the high court? " the bench told the counsel who submitted that he had a Constitutional right to approach either courts.
The court then wondered if a writ of quo warranto would lie when a person is nominated to a particular post.
A writ of quo warranto is a plea in which an individual`s right to hold an office or governmental privilege is challenged by another person.
Thereafter, the bench gave the option to the counsel to withdraw the petition with liberty to move the high court which he agreed and accordingly withdrew it.
Sisodia in his petition said Sachin does not possess any of the qualifications as prescribed under Article 80 of the Constitution of India for being nominated to the Rajya Sabha.
"But despite that he has been nominated as a member of Rajya Shaba. His nomination is not in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and liable to be struck down."
In his petition, the former Delhi MLA had raised several questions, including if a person can be nominated as a member of Rajya Shaba under clause 1(a) read with clause (3) of Article 80 of the Constitution of India even if he does not have a special knowledge or practical experience in the prescribed categories as enumerated under clause (3) of the Article 80 of the Constitution.
The petition also asked if a nomination made beyond the categories as specified under Article 80 (3) of the Constitution is not liable to be declared as an invalid and illegal nomination?
"That in view of these facts and circumstances, the petitioner has filed the Civil Writ Petition before this Hon’ble Court since there is a clear violation of the provisions of Article 14, (equality of law) 16(1) (equality in public employment), (51A (fundamental duties) (a), read with Article 300 A (persons not to be deprived of property except by law) and Article 80 of the Constitution of India," read the petition.
"That after nomination, a person would be entitled to certain financial rights and other privileges which cannot be conferred on a person who is not eligible to be nominated to Rajya Sabha," it said.
"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," it added.