Calcutta HC Dismisses Hasirani Rath Affidavit Plea

• The Calcutta High Court dismissed a plea by the West Bengal Congress challenging BJP candidate Hasirani Rath's election affidavit for the Nandigram by-election.
• The plea alleged a discrepancy between Rath's declared age of "60+ years" and her statement of passing Class X in 1965.
• Justice Krishna Rao ruled that intervening at this stage would directly interfere with the ongoing election process, scheduled for October 6.
• Hasirani Rath was announced as the BJP candidate on September 15 for the seat vacated by Suvendu Adhikari.
• The ruling highlights the judiciary's reluctance to disrupt election schedules, emphasizing the importance of timely challenges.

The court's decision, delivered by Justice Krishna Rao, effectively allows Rath's candidacy to proceed without immediate judicial intervention regarding the contested details.

The Calcutta High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by the West Bengal Pradesh Congress Committee, which sought an investigation into an alleged age discrepancy in the election affidavit of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) candidate Hasirani Rath. Rath is contesting the Nandigram by-election, and the challenge centered on her Form 26 candidate disclosure. The court's decision, delivered by Justice Krishna Rao, effectively allows Rath's candidacy to proceed without immediate judicial intervention regarding the contested details.

The West Bengal Congress had brought the plea, arguing that Rath's affidavit contained contradictory information. Specifically, while she declared her age as "60+ years," the same document stated that she had completed Class X from Chowkhali Ganga Padma Milan Kanya Vidyapith (High School) in 1965. This discrepancy formed the basis of the challenge, suggesting that her actual age might be significantly higher than declared, given the year of her schooling completion.

Justice Krishna Rao's ruling underscored the judiciary's reluctance to intervene in ongoing electoral processes, particularly when such intervention could disrupt the election schedule. The court explicitly stated that deciding the issue at this stage would directly affect the current election. This stance highlights a judicial priority to ensure the smooth and timely conduct of elections, even when allegations of discrepancies are raised.

The court's reasoning emphasized that any judicial action concerning the nomination papers of Hasirani Rath, the respondent no. 5 in the case of West Bengal Pradesh Congress Committee & Anr. v Election Committee of India & Ors, would directly impede the electoral timeline. This judicial restraint serves as a significant precedent, indicating that challenges to candidate affidavits, especially close to an election, face a high bar for immediate judicial intervention.

The Nandigram by-election, scheduled for October 6, became necessary after West Bengal Chief Minister Suvendu Adhikari vacated the seat. Adhikari had won both Nandigram and Bhabanipur in the 2026 Assembly election but chose to retain the Bhabanipur constituency. Hasirani Rath was formally announced as the BJP's candidate for Nandigram on September 15, setting the stage for the current electoral contest.

Hasirani Rath is also known as the mother of Chandranath Rath, who was a close aide to Suvendu Adhikari and was tragically killed in May of this year. The challenge to her Form 26 affidavit, which is a mandatory disclosure form for election candidates, focused on the specific details provided regarding her age and educational background, leading to the Calcutta HC dismisses Hasirani Rath affidavit plea.

This ruling by the Calcutta High Court provides crucial insight into the judicial approach towards election-related disputes, particularly those concerning candidate affidavits. It reinforces the principle that courts are generally hesitant to halt or interfere with an election once the process is underway, prioritizing the democratic exercise over immediate resolution of alleged discrepancies. The timing of such challenges is therefore paramount, as late interventions are likely to be viewed as disruptive.

For legal practitioners advising political parties or candidates on election challenges, this case underscores the critical importance of filing pleas well in advance of the election date. The court's decision suggests that the potential for disruption to the election schedule can outweigh the immediate need to verify alleged inconsistencies, even in a Form 26 candidate age discrepancy. This judicial posture aims to prevent the weaponization of legal challenges to derail or delay electoral processes.

This ruling highlights the Calcutta High Court's reluctance to intervene in ongoing election processes, particularly concerning candidate affidavit discrepancies, if such intervention could disrupt the election schedule. Lawyers advising political parties or candidates on election challenges should note that the timing of their pleas is crucial, as courts may prioritize the smooth conduct of elections over immediate resolution of alleged discrepancies.

Source: Original reporting via Bar and Bench