Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.20 seconds)Article 243ZG in Constitution of India [Constitution]
K. Venkatachalam vs A. Swamickan And Anr on 26 April, 1999
The Supreme Court observed that the judgement in K. Venkatachalam (Supra) is not applicable in the situation and there was no general proposition that even if there is specific remedy of filing an election petition, the disputed questions of fact regarding caste of a person can be decided under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. There was another distinguishing feature in K. Venkatachalam. In that case there was clear finding that elected person therein had played fraud with the Constitution in as much as he knew that his name was not in the electoral roll of that constituency and he impersonated for some other person taking benefit of the similarity of names. The Supreme Court held in Kurapati Maria Das that where the remedy of election petition is provided under the local laws, in view of the bar created by Art.243 ZG (b), writ petition should not be entertained and further disputed questions of fact regarding caste, status cannot be looked into in a writ petition.
Flection Commission, India vs Saka Venkata Subba Raounion Of ... on 27 February, 1953
17. The Supreme Court also referred to K. Venkatachalam Vs. A. Swamickan & Anr., (1999) 2 SCR 857, where writ of quo warranto was sought against the member of legislative assembly on the ground that his name was not found in the voters list and in Election Commission of India Vs. Saka Venkata Rao, (1953) 4 SCR 1144 in which considering Art.192 the Supreme Court observed that Art.226 is couched in widest possible language and unless there is a clear bar to the jurisdiction of the High Court, the power under Art.226 can be exercised.
Jaspal Singh Arora vs State Of M.P. And Ors. on 21 July, 1997
In Jaspal Singh Arora Vs. State of M.P. & Ors., (1998) 9 SCC 594 and Gurdeep Singh Dhillon Vs. Satpal & Ors., (2006) 10 SCC 616 it was observed that short-cut of filing writ petition and invoking constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Art.226/227 is not permissible. The only remedy available to challenge the election is by raising election dispute under legal statutes.
Article 192 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 243 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 243ZF in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Kurapati Maria Das vs M/S. Dr. Ambedkar Seva Samajan & Ors on 17 April, 2009
In Kurapati Maria Das (Supra) the Supreme Court considered the bar under Art.243ZG (b) and held that where the caste of a person contesting the election is challenged, the only remedy available is to challenge the election by filing election petition and not a writ petition under Art.226/227 of the Constitution. Art.243ZG reads as follows:-
1