Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
INC candidate Meenakshi Natarajan’s Rajya Sabha nomination from Madhya Pradesh was rejected for non-disclosure of a pending criminal case in her Form 26 affidavit. The Supreme Court declined to examine the merits, holding that the constitutional bar under Article 329(b) admits no exception for cases involving manifest illegality.
“As per Section 87, RP Act, any provision of CPC that is inconsistent with Section 82, RP Act, which specifies the persons to be impleaded in an election petition, cannot be invoked to implead a person who is otherwise not liable to be joined as a respondent under Section 82, RP Act.”
Since the term of the Assembly had already expired and fresh elections w held in 2025, the election petition had become infructuous.
The Court must examine whether the petition, even if taken as unopposed and all averments are accepted as true, would entitle the petitioner to a favourable verdict; if not, it discloses no cause of action.
BSP Candidate Kankar Munjare approached the High Court alleging irregularities in the vote count at Polling Station 88, prompting judicial scrutiny of the 2024 parliamentary election process in Balaghat.
“If the ROPA itself mandates that non-joinder of a necessary party leads to dismissal of an election petition, the Court cannot use CPC provisions to cure that defect.”
“An election petition involves judicial interference with the electoral process and, consequently, with the mandate of the people. For this reason, the provisions of the Act must be construed strictly.”
“There was a massive delay in the disposal of the election petition, because of which the petitioner thought it appropriate to confine his arguments only to the recounting of votes in terms of the amended petition.”
This matter pertains to the degree of ‘substantial compliance’ with the prescribed Form 25 affidavit, as encapsulated in the proviso to Section 83(1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 read with Rule 94-A of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961.
“The will of the people, expressed through the election result, should be respected, unless it has been corrupted by fraudulent practices, in which case, the court should intervene without hesitation.”
“Once such scrutiny attains finality, then election can only be set aside under Section 100 if it is shown that the result of such election has been materially affected by non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or the RP Act.”
Explore latest Cases reported in SCC’s High Court Cases (HCC) Election Law: Party Recognition, Voting Rights, and Election Disputes.
“There might be cases where a candidate belonging to a particular religion, in which polygamy is not prohibited, has contracted multiple marriages. If contention about impermissibility to add column in Form 26 Affidavit is accepted, such candidate would never be able to contest any election as disclosure of information about additional wife would attract ground for declaring the election void.”
One of the contentions is that there are multiple votes cast in the name of same persons in different booths in the Dhule Parliamentary Constituency with their names being reflected at multiple places of the same assembly constituency.
The Court found the Sub Divisional Officer’s handwritten order-sheets, nearly illegible, making it difficult for the higher authority to discern the proceedings.
The matter revolved around the respondent questioning the petitioner’s election to Jagaluru Vidhan Sabha Constituency contending that the petitioner did not belong to Scheduled Tribe but belonged to the Other Backward Community.
“Amol has thoroughly failed to raise necessary pleadings disclosing the cause of action for setting aside the election of Ravindra under any of the grounds enumerated in Section 100 of the RP Act.”
Election petition discloses all material facts as are required to be disclosed in law. No material fact upon which the petitioner relies, be it positive or negative, has been concealed in the petition. Law does not obligate the petitioner to project respondent’s case in his petition.
Supreme Court reiterated that the Election Petition should not be rejected at the very threshold where there is a “substantial compliance” of the provisions.
“The petitioners have not averred as to how the result of the returned candidate can be affected by minor deficiencies. Thus, the petitioners have failed to make out any cause of action.”