Allahabad High Court Dismisses Plea Against Yogi Adityanath Continuing on CM Post

yogi Adityanath

The Allahabad High Court has dismissed the petition challenging the continuance of Yogi Adityanath as Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh.

The court imposed costs of Rs. 11,000 on the petitioner which shall be paid to State legal Services Authority Within four weeks.


The Petitioner has admitted that he is neither an Elector nor a candidate at the election of Gorakhpur Urban Legislative Assembly constituency, from which the Respondent stands elected. 

The Writ Petition came to be filed on the ground that the respondent, Yogi Adityanath is a usurper of office of Chief Minister of State of Uttar Pradesh with effect from 25.09.2022 and allegedly the respondent was not qualified to contest the election for the current legislative assembly of State of Uttar Pradesh due to violation of provisions of Rule 4 A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. 

Thus, in a nut-shell, it has been prayed by the Petitioner for issuance of Writ of Quo Warranto against the Respondent for his continuation as Chief Minister of State of Uttar Pradesh with effect from 25.09.2022. 

Court’s Observation 

A bench of Justices Attau Rahman Masoodi and Om Prakash Shukla found the petition to be very amusing.

Section 80 of the Representation of People’s Act, 1951 inter- alia states that no election shall be called in question except by an Election Petition presented in accordance with the provisions of this part. Essentially, the sum & substance of the relief being sought by the Petitioner is on the basis of an attack to the alleged affidavit filed by the Respondent in terms of the provisions of Rule 4 A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961.

The court said, “any challenge to an election is a statutory right and is available to a person as has been prescribed under the statute only. The Petitioner has for obvious reasons not filed the Election Petition in the present case & has chosen to file the present Writ Petition which is not permissible under the statute. In fact the Petitioner by filing the present Writ Petition is trying to do something indirectly which the law prohibits him to do directly.”

The courts have also from time to time held that no litigant has a right to unlimited draught on the court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in a manner as he wishes. Easy access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions.

Case: Dr M Ismail Faruqui v Adityanath

Citation: WRIT – C No. – 7524 of 2022

Date: 11.11.2022

Click here to read the Order/Judgment

JurisHour is the fastest online portal for Indian legal news.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *