Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (0.34 seconds)
Tanu Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 16 September, 2019 cites

Bhagwati Prasad Dixit 'Ghorewala' vs Rajeev Gandhi on 25 April, 1986

In Bhagwati Prasad Dixit Ghorewala Vs. Rajeev Gandhi, (1986) 4 SCC 78, the question raised in the election petition laying challenge to the election of the respondent was that in view of the respondent having married a foreign national, he had lost the citizenship and the respondents citizenship, therefore, stood terminated under Section 9 of the Citizenship Act. This Court held that the question of Patna High Court CWJC No.24467 of 2018 dt. 16-09-2019 34/39 citizenship could be gone into by the High Court hearing an election petition and the High Court, trying an election petition, can declare an Indian citizen having become disqualified because of his having acquired the citizenship of a foreign State. But in view of the scheme of Section 9, which is a complete code as regards the termination of Indian citizenship on the acquisition of the citizenship of a foreign country, the High Court trying an election petition, could give such declaration only on the basis of a declaration made by the Central Government as to termination of citizenship being produced before a High Court, which shall have to be given effect to by the High Court. So long as such a declaration is not forthcoming, the High Court should proceed on the ground that the candidate concerned had not ceased to be an Indian citizen. This is a harmonious way in which the two types of issues, namely, the issue relating to the validity of an election to either House of Parliament or of a State Legislature and the issue relating to loss of Indian citizenship on the acquisition of citizenship of a foreign country, which are both vital, can be resolved. The Court drew a distinction between two situations: (i) a person may not be citizen of India because he has not acquired the citizenship of India at all, and (ii) a person may not be a citizen of India because having acquired citizenship, he may have lost it by voluntarily acquiring citizenship of another country as provided in Section 9 (1) of the Citizenship Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 31 - Cited by 73 - E S Venkataramiah - Full Document

Sushil Prasad Yaday @ Sushil Yaday vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 12 January, 2018

9. In my opinion, in the circumstances discussed, the election dispute, on this count, was not maintainable. The election dispute was also not maintainable for the election petitioner cannot question the election of the managing committee as a whole in a sweeping manner simply on grounds that 281 persons had incorrectly been granted membership of the society. The provisions of section 12(1) (d) (iv) of 'the Election Authority Act' is self eloquent and until such time that the election petitioner is able to demonstrate by leading substantive piece of evidence that these ineligible persons have contributed to the success of the returned candidate, a sweeping statement cannot constitute an election dispute nor a charge simplicitor of infracted voter list shall be Patna High Court CWJC No.24467 of 2018 dt. 16-09-2019 32/39 sufficient to interfere with the election of the returned candidate(s). Reference in this regard is made to the judgment reported in 2015(4) PLJR 881 (Sushila Prasad Vs. State of Bihar). Neither on maintainability nor on merits the election dispute was capable of being entertained and has been wrongly entertained by the prescribed authority who has perpetuated the illegality by upsetting the election.
Patna High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - V Jain - Full Document
1   2 3 Next