Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.30 seconds)
Kankar Munjare vs Election Commission Of India on 6 February, 2023 cites

Paokai Haokip vs Rishang & Ors on 12 August, 1968

It is manifest that law laid down by this Court in Vashist Narain Sharma's case and Paokai Haokip's case holds the field and it is not permissible to set aside the election of a returned candidate under Section 100(1)(d) on mere surmises and conjectures. If the improperly nominated candidate had not been in the election contest, it is difficult to comprehend or predicate with any amount of reasonably certainty the manner and the proportion in which the voters who exercised their choice in favour of the improperly nominated candidate would have exercised their votes. The Courts are ill- equipped to speculate as to how the voters could have exercised their right of vote in the absence of improperly nominated candidate. Any speculation made by the Court in the this respect would be arbitrary and contrary to the democratic principles. It is a matter of common knowledge that electors exercise their right of vote on various unpredictable considerations. Many times electors cast their vote on consideration of friendship, party affiliation, local affiliation, caste, religion, personal relationship and many other imponderable considerations. Casting of votes by electors depends upon several factors and it is not possible to forecast or guess as to how and in what manner the voters would have exercised their choice in the absence of the improperly nominated candidate. No inference on the basis of circumstances can successfully be drawn. While in a suit of proceedings it may be possible for the Court to draw inferences or proceed on probabilities with regard to the conduct of parties to the suit or proceedings, it is not possible to proceed on probabilities or draw inferences regarding the conduct of thousands of voters, who may have voted for the improperly nominated candidate. In the instant case there were 11 contesting candidates. If Kanaiya Lal whose nomination paper had been improperly accepted was not in the 23 election contest, it is difficult to say in what proportion the voters who had voted for him would have voted for the remaining candidates. There is possibility that many voters who had gone to the polling station to cast their votes in favour of Kanaiya Lal may not have gone to exercise their vote in favour of the remaining candidates. It is probable that in the absence of Kanaiya Lal in the election contest, many voters would have voted for the returned candidate as he appeared to be the most popular candidate. It is difficult to comprehend that the majority of the voters who exercised their choice in favour of Kanaiya Lal would have voted for the next candidate Roshan Lal. It is not possible to forecast how many and in what proportion the votes would have gone to one or the other remaining candidates and in what manner the wasted votes would have been distributed among the remaining contesting candidates. In this view, the result of the returned candidate could not be declared void on the basis of surmises and conjectures."
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 34 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document

Shiv Charan Singh S/O Shri Angad Singh vs Chandra Bhan Singh S/O Shri Mahavir ... on 19 January, 1988

Over and above, Shri Baghel relied upon a decision in re Shiv Charan Singh v. Chandra Bhan Singh and others AIR 1988 SC 637 while dealing with the situation "improper acceptance of nomination paper - election petitioners failing to prove that election of returned candidate was materially affected, came to observe as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 49 - K N Singh - Full Document

Rajesh Kumar vs Devendra Singh on 20 June, 2012

Taking strength of the decisions relied upon and quoted hereinbove, Shri Baghel submitted that it is clear the election of returned candidate did not get materially affected due to acceptance of nomination paper of respondent No.16. He further submitted that even otherwise there is no pleading or proof by the petitioner that the acceptance of nomination form of respondent No.16 did materially affect the election of returned candidate. To reinforce, he placed reliance on a decision in re Rajesh Kumar v. Devendra Singh 2013(3) MPLJ 640, in which the High Court has considered this aspect and observed that the election petitioner is obligated to plead and prove that acceptance of nomination form improperly, materially affected the election of returned candidate. In absence of specific pleading in that regard, the election cannot be declared void.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 Next