VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Delhi High Court 2026 › High Court of Delhi

Satish Kumar Aggarwal v. Union of India and Ors

Court
High Court of Delhi
Decided
20 May 2026
Bench
Tejas Kariaauthor
Case no.
W.P.(C) 7019/2026

Judgment

TEJAS KARIA, J MAY 20, 2026 "shailndra"/ "sms"

Case details

Parties and counsel

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 20.05.2026 + SATISH KUMAR AGGARWAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Barun Kumar Sinha, Ms. Pratibha Sinha, Mr. Sneh Vardhan and Mr. Vaibhav Singh, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ankur Mittal, CGSC with Mr. Aviraj Pandey, Ms. Sobhya Jain, Mr. Hrithik Saxena and Ms. R. Jaiswal, Advocates for R-1/UOI. Mr. Sanjay Vashishtha, SC with Mr. Siddhartha Goswami, Mr. Ashish Shukla, Mr. Aditya Sachdeva and Mr. Krish Bhatia, Advocates for R-2/ECI. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ(ORAL) 1. Heard Mr. Barun Kumar Sinha, learned Counsel representing the Petitioner, Mr. Ankur Mittal, learned Counsel representing Respondent No.1 / Union of India and Mr. Sanjay Vashishtha, learned Counsel representing Respondent No. 2 / Election Commission of India. 2. Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 ("Constitution") has been sought to be invoked ostensibly in public interest by instituting the proceedings of this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution with the following prayers:- "(i) To issue a writ of mandamus commanding Respondent No. 2, i.e. the Election Commission of India, to deregister Respondent No. 3 political party, i.e. the Aam Aadmi Party, for violation of Section 29A(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951; (ii) To direct Respondent No. 2 to declare Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 disqualified from contesting elections to either the Parliament or the Assembly; (iii) To pass such other or further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper facts and circumstances of the case." 3. A perusal of the prayer clause of the Writ Petition, thus, reveals that a direction has been sought to be issued to Respondent No. 2 / Election Commission of India ("Election Commission") to deregister Respondent No. 3, a political party for violation of the provisions contained in Section 29-A(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 ("R.P. Act"). 4. The Petitioner has also sought a direction to be issued to Respondent No. 2 / Election Commission to declare Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 as disqualified from contesting elections either to the Parliament or to the State Assembly. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner in support of the first prayer that in terms of the provisions contained in Section 29-A of the R.P. Act, any application made by an association seeking registration as a political party has to accompany a copy of the memorandum or rules and regulations of the said association and such memorandum or rules and regulations shall contain a specific provision that the association or body shall bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution and to the principles of socialism, secularism and democracy and would uphold the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India. The submission is that in view of the judgment of this Court dated 20.04.2026 in Crl.Rev.P. 134/2026, since there are certain observations made by the Court in respect of the conduct of Respondent Nos. 4 to 6, who are the members of the political party concerned, as such the political party has rendered itself disqualified to continue to be registered for violation of the provisions contained in Section 29-A(5) of the R.P. Act. 5. In respect of the other prayer, where a direction has been sought to be issued to Respondent No. 2 / Election Commission, to declare Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 as disqualified from contesting elections to either the Parliament or the State Assembly, reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner on the provisions contained in Article 84(c) of the Constitution, according to which a person shall not be qualified to be a Member of Parliament unless he possesses such other qualification as may be prescribed in that regard by or under any law made by the Parliament and since as per the judgment of this Court referred to h

Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.