Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 246 (0.98 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India & Anr vs Assn.Of Unified Telecom S.P.Of ... on 11 October, 2011

P.Milany vs S.Arumugam on 18 September, 2019

15. It is relevant to mention that the Election Commission of India issued a press note on 28-6-2002 in which there was a reference to the judgment of this Court in Union of India v. Assn. for Democratic Reforms [Union of India v. Assn. for Democratic Reforms, (2002) 5 SCC 294] in which it was held that information on five aspects has to be provided to the voter. One of the five aspects pertains to the educational qualification of the candidates. An Order was issued by the Election Commission of India on 28- 6-2002 directing that full and complete information relating to the five aspects which were mentioned in the judgment has to be furnished. Providing incomplete information or suppression of material information on 67 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ELP.No.4/2019 any of the five aspects was to be treated as a defect of substantial character by the Returning Officers.
Madras High Court Cites 68 - Cited by 0 - S S Sundar - Full Document

P.Milany vs S.Arumugam on 18 September, 2019

15. It is relevant to mention that the Election Commission of India issued a press note on 28-6-2002 in which there was a reference to the judgment of this Court in Union of India v. Assn. for Democratic Reforms [Union of India v. Assn. for Democratic Reforms, (2002) 5 SCC 294] in which it was held that information on five aspects has to be provided to the voter. One of the five aspects pertains to the educational qualification of the candidates. An Order was issued by the Election Commission of India on 28- 6-2002 directing that full and complete information relating to the five aspects which were mentioned in the judgment has to be furnished. Providing incomplete information or suppression of material information on 67 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ELP.No.4/2019 any of the five aspects was to be treated as a defect of substantial character by the Returning Officers.
Madras High Court Cites 68 - Cited by 0 - S S Sundar - Full Document

Shambhu Prasad Sharma vs Charan Das Mahant & Ors on 3 July, 2012

3. Election to No.4 Korba Parliamentary Constituency in the State of Chhattisgarh was held as a part of the general elections of the year 2009. As many as twenty two candidates filed their nomination papers for election from the above constituency but with the withdrawal of nominations by four of such candidates, only seventeen candidates were left in the fray besides the appellant-petitioner who contested as an independent candidate and respondent No.1 set up by the Indian National Congress Party. The margin of victory between respondent No.1 and Karuna Shukla set up by the Bhartiya Janta Party who emerged as his nearest rival was around 20,000 votes. The appellant who polled 23136 votes then filed Election Petition No.15 of 2009 before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in which he sought a declaration about his having been elected unopposed apart from a declaration to the effect that the nomination papers filed by the remaining 17 candidates had been improperly and illegally accepted. The appellant’s case as set out in the election petition primarily was that the nomination papers filed by respondents 2 to 18 were incomplete for want of a proper affidavit required to be filed in terms of the orders passed by this Court in Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms and Anr. (2002) 5 SCC 294 and the instructions issued by the Election Commission requiring the candidates to file such affidavits along with their nomination papers. The appellant alleged that while he had filed an affidavit in the prescribed format along with his nomination papers which was found to be in order by the Returning Officer, the nomination papers filed by the remaining candidates were not accompanied by the requisite affidavits in Form 3 ka (iii) thereby rendering the nomination papers incomplete, hence liable to be rejected. An objection to that effect appears to have been raised even before the Returning Officer, who examined and rejected the same in terms of his order dated 31st March, 2009. The Returning Officer held that the nomination papers filed by all the candidates were accompanied by the requisite affidavits and that there was no deficiency in the same to justify their rejection. The election petition questioned the said finding and assailed the order passed by the Returning Officer as being perverse. The appellant alleged that in terms of the order passed by this Court in the judgment referred to above and the directions issued by the Election Commission the essential information required to be furnished in the affidavit particularly whether there were any dues outstanding against the candidate towards any financial institution or the government had not been supplied in the requisite format by the candidates whose nomination papers were accepted which was reason enough for the rejection of the nomination papers filed by them and declaration of the appellant- petitioner as having been elected unopposed to the Lok Sabha from that constituency.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 17 - T S Thakur - Full Document

Satya Narayan Singh vs Election Commission Of India on 6 February, 2013

In case, failure to support the prescribed form by an affidavit is held not to be sufficient ground for rejection of nomination paper, the two judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Association for Democratic Reforms and Another (Supra) and People's Union for Civil Liberties (supra) would become teethless as direction of the Supreme Court to furnish information required under Section 33(1) of the Act in Form 26 duly supported by an affidavit shall thereby become ineffective and without any force of law as for such failure the nomination could not be rejected.
Patna High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 1 - V N Sinha - Full Document

Sri Mairembam Prithviraj @ Prithibiraj ... vs Shri Pukhrem Sharatchandra Singh on 28 October, 2016

15. It is relevant to mention that the Election Commission of India issued a press note on 28.06.2002 in which there was a reference to the judgment of this Court in Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms in which it was held that information on five aspects has to be provided to the voter. One of the five aspects pertains to the educational qualification of the candidates. An order was issued by the Election Commission of India on 28.06.2002 directing that full and complete information relating to the five aspects which were mentioned in the judgment has to be furnished. Providing incomplete information or suppression of material information on any of the five aspects was to be treated as a defect of substantial character by the Returning Officers.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - L N Rao - Full Document

Akshya Kumar Sarangi vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 February, 2017

14. The members of Parliament or State Legislatures represent the people and are members of the highest law making bodies at the Centre and the State respectively. We are at a loss to understand why although educational qualifications are to be disclosed as stipulated in Union of India Vs. Association for Democratic Reforms, there is no minimum qualification prescribed. Voters not only have a right to know the antecedents of their candidates but also have a right to be governed by persons who are educated and consequently knowledgeable. In a democratic polity voters expect that their representatives in the Central and State Legislatures would take informed decisions and be able to participate in the debates and law making process. Voters do not want cheer brigades or persons who stall proceedings in Parliament or in the Assembly due to the lack of education and vision. It is difficult to fathom how a person who is barely able to sign his name would be able to understand the complexities of issues which crop up in Parliament. Education would enable legislators to widen their horizon, display their innate wisdom and maturity by rising above pettiness, parochialism and narrow mindedness.
Calcutta High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - N Mhatre - Full Document

Sri Mairembam Prithviraj @ Prithibiraj ... vs Shri Pukhrem Sharatchandra Singh on 28 October, 2016

However, voters' fundamental right to know the antecedents of a candidate is independent of statutory rights under the election law. A voter is first citizen of this country and apart from statutory rights, he is having fundamental rights conferred by the Constitution. Members of a democratic society should be sufficiently informed so that they may cast their votes intelligently in favour of persons who are to govern them. Right to vote would be meaningless unless the citizens are well informed about the antecedents of a candidate. There can be little doubt that exposure to public gaze and scrutiny is one of the surest means to cleanse our democratic governing system and to have competent legislatures.” It is relevant to mention that the Election Commission of India issued a press note on 28.06.2002 in which there was a reference to the judgment of this Court in Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms in which it was held that information on five aspects has to be provided to the voter. One of the five aspects pertains to the educational qualification of the candidates. An order was issued by the Election Commission of India on 28.06.2002 directing that full and complete information relating to the five aspects which were mentioned in the judgment has to be furnished. Providing incomplete information or suppression of material information on any of the five aspects was to be treated as a defect of substantial character by the Returning Officers.
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 53 - L N Rao - Full Document

Prabhunath Singh vs Shri Janardan Singh Sigriwal on 8 August, 2017

44. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Association for Democratic Reforms, A.I.R. 2002 Supreme Court 2112 has held that in a democratic form of government, voters are of utmost importance. They have right to elect or re-elect on the basis of the antecedents and past performance of the candidate. He has choice of deciding whether holding of educational qualification or holding of property is relevant for electing or re-electing a person to be his representative. Voter has to decide whether he should cast vote in favour of a candidate who is involved in criminal case, for maintaining purity of elections and healthy democracy, voters are Patna High Court E.P. No.6 of 2014 dt.-08-08-2017 36 required to be educated and well informed about the contesting candidate. Such information would include assets held by the candidate, his qualification including educational qualification and antecedents of his life including whether he was involved in a criminal case and if the case is decided its result, if pending - whether charge is framed or cognizance is taken by the Court? There is no necessity of suppressing the relevant facts from the voters. In this very decision, the Supreme Court directed the Election Commission to call for information on affidavit by issuing necessary order in exercise of its power under Article 324. Pursuant to this decision Sections 33A and 33B of the R.P. Act were inserted by way of amendment. However, Section 33B has been declared ultra vires. Section 33A(1)(i) provides that candidate shall also furnish the information as to whether he is accused of any offence punishable with imprisonment for two years or more in a pending case in which a charge has been framed by the Court of competent jurisdiction.
Patna High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - M Sahoo - Full Document

Lal Das Rai vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 27 June, 2014

But the approach in the political circles and the Government to this suggested amendment in the Constitution, the 1950 Act as well as the 1951 Act and the IPC, for the purposes of disqualifying the persons facing criminal charges and steps to be taken to stop entry of criminals in politics suffered from scepticism. In the circumstances, a writ petition was filed as a Public Interest Litigation by the Association of Democratic Reforms before the Delhi High Court in the year 1999, which, though, in its order dated 2.11.2000 (AIR 2001 Del 126), refused Patna High Court E.P. No.10 of 2009 dt.27-06-2014 91/101 to give any direction to the Government or the Parliament to amend the law but held that the electors had a right of information enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution to know the criminal propensities and activities of the candidate. Hence, the High Court directed the Election Commission to secure to the voters the information pertaining to a candidate standing for election to either of the Houses of Parliament or either of the Houses of the State Legislature (a) with regard to them being accused in offences punishable with imprisonment and the details thereof; (b) assets possessed by them or their spouse and their dependents; (c) their educational qualification and other necessary information which the Election Commission may consider necessary for judging the capacity and capability of political party feeding them. The Central Government felt aggrieved by this order and moved the Apex Court supported by the Election Commission., which in its order dated 2nd May, 2002 in the case of Union of India v. Assn. for Democratic Reforms [(2002) 5 SCC 294] held that Article 324 is the reservoir of powers of the Election Commission which, in appropriate cases in absence of law made by appropriate legislation, can issue necessary directions and therefore directed it in the following terms in paragraph 48 of the judgment :-
Patna High Court Cites 96 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next