Setback for Kerala BJP: HC upholds EC’s decision to reject 3 nominees

The nominations of three BJP candidates in Kerala were rejected by returning officers for not fulfilling the required formalities. The High Court, too, on Monday (March 22) dismissed writ petitions filed by the BJP nominees, challenging the decision of the returning officers, thus leaving the saffron party red-faced, ahead of Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s proposed election rallies in the state.

The High Court (HC) approved the arguments raised by the election commission that no court can interfere in this stage when the election notification is in force. The HC asked the petitioners to approach the court after the elections, as the decision of the election commission (EC) is final during the pendency of the notification.

The case

Earlier, The BJP nominees in Devikulam (Idukki district), Thalassery (Kannur) and Guruvayur (Thrissur) constituencies, submitted the nominations on March 19, the last day for submission. On scrutiny of their applications on March 20, it was found that the party’s candidates from Guruvayur and Thalassery constituencies had not submitted forms A and B along with the nominations. The Devikulam candidate’s nomination was rejected for submitting an incomplete Form 26.

Niveditha Subramanian, the State President of BJP Mahila Morcha, was the candidate from Guruvayur, who submitted a writ petition in the High Court, seeking rebuttal of returning officer’s decision. N Haridas, the District President of BJP in Kannur, too approached the High Court, challenging the rejection of his nomination from Thalassery.

Also read: HC issues notice to Centre as petition challenges validity of new IT rules

The nomination of R M Dhanlaxmi in Devikulam constituency of Idukki district was rejected for the reason that Form 26 was incomplete. Surprisingly, Dhanalaxmi is no novice in the electioneering process. She had contested the 2016 elections as an AIADMK candidate and secured 11,163 votes then. Sources said that BJP is unlikely to fight Dhanalaxmi’s cause in the court and support Congress rebel, who is yet to be finalized, instead. Dhanalaxmi, however, had approached the High Court against the decision of the returning officer.

According to a petition filed by N Haridasan, BJP’s candidate from Thalassery, the returning officer had ‘sinister motives’ behind rejecting his candidature. Haridasan submitted his nomination by 1 pm on March 19. The returning officer rejected the same for want of Forms A and B and gave him time till 3 pm to do the needful. Haridasan submitted both the forms by 3 pm, but the form A did not have the signatures of J P Nadda, the national president of BJP, which is necessary to endorse a party candidate.

Niveditha Subramanian faced similar problem in Guruvayur. She submitted the nomination form 15 minutes prior to the closing time on the final day of submission of nomination. Her nomination too was rejected for want of forms A and B. “The whole incident was engineered by CPM. The returning officer is their man. Rejecting nomination for minor technical errors is nothing but the violation of natural justice,” Niveditha, who is a lawyer by profession, said while speaking to The Federal.

No small mistake

Experts, however, say the BJP candidates’ mistakes cannot be considered as ‘minor clerical error’. “Form A is the authorisation of the national chief of the party. Form B is the authorisation of the State Chief for granting party symbol to the candidate. The State Chief should have the authorisation from the national head as well. Otherwise, the candidate will be considered independent and independents are required to submit the support letter from not less than 10 proposers,” said Mohemmad Sha, a lawyer at the High Court of Kerala.

BJP, however, has been thrown into deep embarrassment by this sudden turn of events. Union Home Minister Amit Shah was scheduled to address a public meeting in Thalassery on March 25, which now stands cancelled, according to party sources.

Also read: Anti-CAA stance helps Left make inroads in north Kerala’s minority areas

BJP’s state Chief K Surendran has squarely blamed the CPM for the fiasco. “The rejection of NDA candidates’ nominations is indeed a setback,” said Surendran. “The local officers are acting under pressure from by CPI (M). Now that the High Court order has gone against us, the BJP will discuss and decide its future course of action,” said Surendran.

Political analysts say the infights within BJP in Kerala would go to the next level now. K Surendran, who is already under pressure, will have to answer a lot of questions from the party central leadership.

Surendran is contesting from two constituencies — Nemom and Mancheswaram.

The Left smells a rat

CPM, however, thinks it is a conspiracy against the Left in which the Congress, Muslim League and BJP (colloquially referred as ‘Coleebi alliance’) are together.

LDF Convenor A Vijayaraghavan said that rejection of BJP candidates’ nominations at three places – all Left bastions –is not an ‘error’ and cannot be an ‘accident’. “This is a challenge to the secular Kerala. It proves that the UDF will go to any extent to get power. This incident is a clear evidence of a deal between BJP and UDF.”

The existence of ‘Congress- League- BJP alliance’, which stormed the political debates in Kerala several times, has been recently vouched by O Rajagopal, the lone MLA and senior leader of BJP in the state. He recently said that ‘it is not a secret that the Congress League BJP alliance (the ‘Coleebi alliance’) did exist in Kerala even in the past. Rajagopal said the alliance had played a role in his victory from Nemom constituency (in Thiruvananthapuram district) in 2016.

Surendran Pillai, the UDF candidate who was pushed to the third place in Nemom in 2016 with 13,000 votes, also alleged that there was vote trading between Congress and BJP. Pillai’s party JD (U) was an ally of Congress in 2016.

Thalassery has been a bastion of the Left since 1957. Justice V R Krishnayer, the minister of law in the first cabinet leady by EMS Namboodirippadu, had contested from Thalassery. Since then, the constituency has consistently favoured CPI and CPM candidates, who often win with huge margins. A N Shamseer of CPM, the sitting MLA and the present candidate of LDF, had won with a margin of 34,000 votes in the last election.

Gurvayur too has favoured Left candidates most of the times. K V Adbul Khader of CPI M has been representing the constituency since 2006. Devikulam in Idukki district, the constituency dominated by Tamil speaking people, has been represented by S Rajendran of CPI (M) since 2006.

It remains to be seen that now that the High Court has stood with returning officers’ decisions to reject its nominees in the three constituencies, what will the BJP do next. Will UDF gain from this so-called fiasco? Or will the LDF win in consolidating more secular votes in their favour citing the ‘BJP-Congress deal’?  The answers to these questions would be crucial in deciding which way the wind blows in this election.