The Orissa High Court has ruled that there is no statutory disqualification preventing persons holding public offices from functioning as election, polling, or counting agents for contesting candidates. The judgment came while dismissing an election petition that challenged the election of BJD MLA Aswini Kumar Patra from the Jaleswar assembly constituency in the 2024 Odisha elections.
Background of the Case
BJP leader Brajamohan Pradhan, who lost to Patra by a margin of 319 votes, filed the election petition. He alleged that Patra violated Election Commission guidelines by appointing Manas Jena, chairman of the Jaleswar Panchayat Samiti, as his election and counting agent. Pradhan sought to declare Patra's election void and demanded a fresh election in the constituency.
Court's Observations
Justice Sashikanta Mishra, while rejecting the plea on Friday, observed that neither the Constitution nor the Representation of the People Act, 1951 bars a person holding a public office from acting as an election or counting agent. The judge specifically held that Manas Jena was legally eligible to function as Patra's agent during the polls.
Justice Mishra noted that the objection raised by the petitioner was based only on executive instructions contained in the Handbook for Candidates, not on any statutory provision having the force of law. He stated, "Neither the Constitution nor the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 create any disqualification against Manas Jena to act as election agent or counting agent."
Insufficient Grounds to Set Aside Election
The High Court further noted that merely questioning the appointment of an election or counting agent was insufficient to set aside an election result. It held that the petitioner was required to specifically plead and prove that Jena had materially influenced voters in favour of the returned candidate or that the election outcome would have been different had he not acted as agent.
Finding no such pleadings or evidence on record, Justice Mishra concluded that the challenge lacked merit and dismissed the election petition.
Implications of the Ruling
This ruling clarifies that public office holders can serve as election agents without violating statutory provisions. It reinforces that election results cannot be overturned based solely on alleged violations of executive instructions unless material influence on the outcome is proven.
