In a firm rebuke, the Delhi High Court rejected AAP leader Somnath Bharti’s request to file a late replication in his election challenge against BJP MP Bansuri Swaraj. Bharti, who had lost to Swaraj in the 2024 Lok Sabha polls, claimed he had never received her written statement.
Justice Anish Dayal dismissed his explanation, pointing out that Bharti had failed to notify the court earlier. “This is not a post office,” the judge remarked, making it clear that court proceedings wouldn’t be derailed by such delays.
Bharti admitted he had been preoccupied with Delhi’s recent assembly elections and hadn’t kept up with developments in his case. The court, unimpressed, asked, “Tell us one law which states that because a litigant was busy in elections, the limitation law will not apply.”
Swaraj’s counsel countered Bharti’s claim, stating that in December 2024, a lawyer representing him had indicated that a replication would be filed—proving that the written statement had indeed been served. Bharti, however, insisted that the lawyer had acted without his instructions.
Justice Dayal dismissed this excuse, warning against the practice of using “proxy” lawyers to stall cases. “You cannot hide behind proxy counsel. That is your mistake, you take it on yourself,” he said.
With Bharti’s plea rejected, his election petition remains focused on allegations that Swaraj’s campaign engaged in corrupt practices, including distributing money and clothing to voters. Despite his claims, the BJP swept all seven parliamentary seats in Delhi, leaving Bharti’s legal battle an uphill climb.
