Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.19 seconds)
Subodh Kumar Verma @ Subodh Verma vs The State Election Commission Bihar & ... on 19 May, 2017
cites
Krishnamoorthy vs Sivakumar & Ors on 21 January, 2015
In a democracy, purity and probity
has to be maintained in public life and in this regard, the Court is in
Patna High Court CWJC No.7202 of 2017 dt.19-05-2017
5/7
agreement with the submissions of learned counsel for the State
Election Commission and his reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Krishnamoorthy (supra). It was
mandatory on the part of the petitioner to disclose about both his
assets as well as criminal antecedent in terms of Sections 445 (1), 445
(1) (i) and 445 (1) (iii) of the Act. The explanation that he was under
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Bihar Municipal Act, 2007
Section 7 in The Essential Commodities Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Shiv Ballam Yadav vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 16 February, 2016
impression that a case under the Essential Commodities Act, was not
a criminal offence, cannot be accepted for the reason that admittedly
he had also obtained bail in the said case and further that the case was
registered in a police station. Both these facts do not give any scope
for giving benefit of doubt or to accept his contention that he was
under any type of misconception. Moreover, such suppression of
criminal antecedent is detrimental to a democratic set up where the
electorate has the right to know about the criminal antecedent
reflecting the character of the prospective candidate of which
pendency of criminal cases is a major indicator. Such non-disclosure
would lead to the electorate being unaware of the past conduct and
criminal antecedent of the petitioner which is a vital and essential
information and the electorate has a right to know about it. Moreover,
once the Court finds that such suppression would be a valid ground
for interfering in the election, if the petitioner finally wins, it would
not let the matter wait till such time, only as a mere formality, when
Patna High Court CWJC No.7202 of 2017 dt.19-05-2017
6/7
the result is already known. Thus, once the petitioner's conduct makes
his nomination paper liable to be rejected, the Court would not
provide him the luxury to contest the election on a technicality, as it
would be a mockery of the system. Further, the Court would rely upon
and adopt the reasons recorded in the judgment dated 18.11.2016 in
C.W.J.C. No. 2394 of 2016 in the case of Shiv Ballam Yadav v. The
State of Bihar and Others.
Smt. Ruma Raj vs The State Election Commission Bihar & ... on 18 May, 2017
Today, the Court had interfered with
regard to rejection of nomination papers in the case of Smt. Ruma
Raj v. State Election Commission and Others (C.W.J.C. No. 7203
of 2017) for the reason that once the nomination paper of the
candidate is accepted by the Returning Officer, Rule 47 of the Rules
does not permit any interference even by the State Election
Commission but in the said case the Court had clearly indicated that
had there been suppression of fact of substantive nature and some
basic inherent and glaring disqualification under the law, for example,
non-declaration of any criminal antecedent which has a direct bearing
on the main electorate, with regard to forming an opinion of the
prospective candidate by the electorate in choosing their
representative, the Court would have refrained to interfere in the
matter or exercise its extraordinary prerogative writ jurisdiction which
is also discretionary. However, in the present case, the suppression
being vital, that is, of criminal antecedent, on the basis of admitted
Patna High Court CWJC No.7202 of 2017 dt.19-05-2017
7/7
facts to prove that the petitioner had suppressed such material facts,
clearly disentitles him to any relief, especially under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India as one of the fundamental principles to
interfere in writ jurisdiction by the High Court is the requirement of
the petitioner coming with clean hands and once it is proved that he
had suppressed material facts for taking part in the election process,
the Court would refrain from interfering in the matter.
1