Bhupendrasinh Chudasama: Sorry I called you biased, milord!

Education minister Bhupendrasinh Chudasama on Monday repeatedly apologised before the Gujarat High Court for his petitions in the Supreme Court questioning the credibility and impartiality of the HC bench occupied with the trial of an election petition filed by Congress candidate Ashwin Rathod challenging his assembly poll victory. The minister was in court for his cross-examination in the case and was grilled by Rathod's lawyer for around four-and-a-half hours.

Asked whether he was aware of the "mistakes" in the petitions he filed in SC, Chudasama expressed remorse and said he had withdrawn the petitions, and that he was apologising from the "core of his heart".

But senior counsel for Rathod, Percy Kavina, was quick to point out to the court that the petitions were withdrawn after the SC clarified that it was not inclined to entertain the pleas.

He was also questioned why he hadn't shown remorse or apologised in the affidavit he filed before his deposition and why he took so long to express the same. The minister said he wanted to apologise in person and publicly and therefore, he apologised during his deposition.

The minister's decision to move the apex court against the high court led to a major embarrassment for him. The HC had severely criticised him in February for the allegation that he wasn't getting a fair trial in the case. In fact, Justice Paresh Upadhyay had then said he would not recuse himself from the matter as he was not an "escapist". Following this, senior advocate Shalin Mehta, who appeared for Chudasama, had retired from the case.

On the issue of Chudasama influencing the poll process and counting, the minister categorically denied it. Once the election is declared and the Model Code of Conduct implemented, he cannot issue any order and the officers are also not supposed to follow his orders, he said. He clarified that he had nothing to do with the transfer of Dhaval Jani as the returning officer of Dholka – which was a decision of the Election Commission.

Asked whether he considered his winning margin a narrow one, the minister said a candidate could win an election by a single vote. He asserted that there had been instances when people won assembly polls by one vote and parliamentary elections by seven votes.

For questions related to the anomalies in the counting of votes, the minister had "nothing to say" as he was not present during counting. He said the election officials followed the guidelines, and there was no question of recounting as neither Rathod nor his counting agents had applied for the same.

As per Jani's testimony, the counting of postal ballots concluded before counting of EVM votes. To this, the minister said it wasn't his lookout. He also said he had not spoken with Jani on the counting day and met him only while he was filing his nomination papers.

Chudasama also clarified that he had objected to Rathod's demand for recounting of postal ballots before the court. He said all election proceedings had been carried out as per rules and since no application was made by Rathod for recounting, the question did not arise.

The Case

Chudasama had won the Assembly election by a thin margin of 327 votes, only after the returning officer Dhaval Jani rejected 429 votes through postal ballots, a number greater than the winning margin

Rathod has contended that rejection of the 429 votes by the RO was illegal and resulted in Chudasama's victory

He has also contended that Gaurang Prajapati, then the deputy collector of Dholka who was to be the RO given his designation, was removed after the election code of conduct was implemented. Prajapati was replaced by Jain at Dholka with an aim to increase Chudasama's prospects of winning the election.

Another argument by Rathod is that although the EC's standing instruction is that postal ballots are to be counted before EVM votes, this was not followed in this case