Supreme Court asks EC to look into grievances of sacked BSF jawan Tej Bahadur Yadav

My nomination was rejected to give a “walkover” for Narendra Modi, says Tej Bahadur Yadav.

Updated - May 08, 2019 10:10 pm IST

Published - May 08, 2019 12:44 pm IST - New Delhi

In this file picture, sacked BSF Jawan Tej Bahadur Yadav addresses during a protest against the Union government.

In this file picture, sacked BSF Jawan Tej Bahadur Yadav addresses during a protest against the Union government.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Election Commission to examine a petition filed by dismissed BSF jawan Tej Bahadur Yadav, whose nomination to contest from Varanasi was rejected.

Mr. Yadav had alleged that he was cast out of the Lok Sabha poll fray to orchestrate a “walkover” for Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who is also contesting from Varanasi.

A Bench led by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi verbally asked the Election Commission counsel to look into certain aspects of Mr. Yadav’s plea and posted the case for Thursday. Mr. Yadav was supported by the Samajwadi Party. 

The Returning Officer (RO) rejected his nomination on the ground that he did not furnish records to prove that his dismissal from the BSF was not brought about by corruption or disloyalty to the State.

The petition contended that the RO had “completely failed to appreciate Mr. Yadav had produced his dismissal letter along with his nomination paper”.

The letter, the petition said, clearly showed that he was dismissed for alleged indiscipline and not for corruption or disloyalty to the State.

“It seems the decision was taken keeping in mind the sensitivity of the contest in Varanasi constituency and to give walkover to the candidate of the ruling party by disqualifying the petitioner whose candidature was gaining momentum and was therefore also supported by the main Opposition alliance of two major political parties in the State. The malafide is apparent,” Mr. Yadav’s petition contended.

Mr. Yadav said the RO had rejected his candidature even without waiting for the EC’s response on a representation sent by him in this regard. The petition urged the apex court to quash and set aside the RO’s order of May 1. 

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in


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.