Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.44 seconds)The Representation of the People Act, 1951
N.E. Horo vs Leander Tiru And Ors. on 5 September, 1989
In N.E. Horo v. Leander Tiru (supra), the Apex Court observed as under:-
Jagdish vs Chandgi And Anr. on 7 November, 1997
In Jagdish v. Chandgi and Anr. (supra), this Court held that inspection of ballot papers cannot be and should not be granted to support vague pleas or to fish out evidence in support such pleas. The relevant election rules contain provision to apply in writing to the Returning Officer for recount of votes either wholly or in part, stating grounds on which such demand is made. Though, at that stage, the Returning Officer should be liberal as election process still continues and if there is any counting error, it may be rectified before the election process was complete. However, this rule cannot apply to the Courts while dealing with an election petition, because, if recount is ordered while deciding election petition, then the electoral process has to be restarted afresh. The fact of not raising objection or making a demand for recount at the time of counting of votes can be taken a strong circumstance to deny a recount of votes in an election petition.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
M.R. Gopalakrishnan vs Thachady Prabhakaran & Ors on 13 December, 1994
In M.R. Gopalakrishnan v. Thachady Prabhakaran and Ors. (10), Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Tribunal or the court trying an election petition has power to direct inspection and recount of votes if the material facts and particulars are pleaded and adequate grounds are found to exist for directing such recount in the interest of justice. Their Lordships restated the principles as under:-
R. Narayanan vs S. Semmalai And Ors on 6 September, 1979
In N. Narayanan v. S. Semmalal and Ors. (11), the Apex Court held that the Court would be justified in ordering a recount of the ballot papers only where; (i) the election petition contains an adequate statement of all the material facts on which the allegations of irregularity or illegality in counting are founded; (ii) on the basis of evidence adduced such allegations are prima facie established, affording a good ground for believing that there has been a mistake in counting, and (iii) the court trying the petition is prima facie satisfied that making of such an order is imperatively necessary to decide the dispute and to do complete and effectual justice between the parties.
Vadivelu vs Sundaram And Ors on 10 October, 2000
In Vadivelu v. Sundaram and Ors. (12), Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under :-
Ram Sewak Yadav vs Hussain Kamil Kidwai & Ors on 17 January, 1964
In Ram Sewak Yadav v. Hussain Kamil Kidwai and Ors. (13), a Constitution of Bench of the Supreme Court held that an election petition must contain a concise statement of material facts on which petitioner relies in support of his case. It was further held that an order for inspection may not be granted as a matter of course: having regard to the insistence upon the secrecy of the ballot papers, the Court would be justified in granting an order for inspection provided two conditions are fulfilled, i.e. (i) that the petition for setting aside an election contains an adequate statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies in support of his case; and (ii) the Tribunal is prima facie satisfied that in order to decide the dispute and to do complete justice between the parties inspection of the ballot papers is necessary.