New Delhi, Nov 1 (IANS) The Supreme Court Thursday said it would Nov 20 hold the preliminary hearing on P.A. Sangma’s petition challenging Pranab Mukherjee’s election as the president.
An apex court constitution bench of Chief Justice Altamas Kabir, Justice P. Sathasivam, Justice S.S. Nijjar, Justice J. Chelameswar and Justice Ranjan Gogoi said it would conduct preliminary hearing to determine whether it should hold regular hearing on the petition.
The court’s order came after procedural issues were raised by senior counsel Ram Jethmalani, who appeared for former Lok Sabha speaker Sangma.
Jethmalani said that under the procedure, the petition upon presentation shall be posted before the bench of five judges for preliminary hearing. Thereafter, if the court thought it proper it may order its service and advertisement in newspapers.
Appearing for Mukharjee, senior counsel Harish Salve said that this case did not warrant regular hearing.
Holding that the court was the master of its own procedures, Salve said that Rule 13 of order 39 of the Supreme Court Rules 1966 left the discretion with the court on how to go about the hearing of a petition challenging the presidential election.
Attorney General G.E. Vahanvati told the court that after the 1997 amendment to Rule 13, the court had to hold the preliminary hearing to determine whether it should conduct a regular hearing.
Rule 13 was amended with the inclusion of a provision that read: “Upon preliminary hearing, the court, if satisfied, that the petition does not deserve regular hearing as contemplated by Rule 20 of this order (order 39 of the Supreme Court Rules 1966) may dismiss the petition or pass any appropriate order as the court may deem fit.”
As rival counsel locked horn over the procedure to be followed by the court in holding the hearing on Sangma’s petition, Justice Sathasivam said: “Can this court go into the merits of the case in the preliminary hearing.”
Sangma moved the apex court Aug 21 contending that Mukherjee held an office of profit when he filed his nomination papers.
Describing the plea as ill-conceived, Mukherjee Tuesday told the court that at the time of filing his nomination papers he held no office of profit, as alleged by Sangma.
He has sought the dismissal of Sangma’s petition, describing it baseless.
