Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.46 seconds)
Jibontara Ghatowar vs Sarbananda Sonowal And Ors on 9 May, 2003 cites

Arun Kumar Bose vs Mohd. Furkan Ansari & Others on 28 September, 1983

In an election dispute, a consensus contrary to law or a failure to discharge statutory obligation cast on an election officer which has resulted in prejudicing the result of the election, cannot ipso facto claim immunity from challenge. In the present case the returning officer has clearly failed in discharging his obligation cast by first proviso below clauses (g) and (h) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 56. Disagreeing with the High Court, therefore, we hold that these 824 ballot papers should have been included for the purpose of counting. It is, therefore clear that so far as 824 votes are concerned it is a ease of rejection of ballot papers contrary to the provisions contained in the rules and to the law declared by this Court in case of Arun Kumar Base (supra). From the other material available on record a case for rejection of other ballot papers was also made out. The averments made in the counter affidavit itself show that the number of rejected ballot papers was 497 out of which 433 ballot papers were in favour of the election petitioner. These facts coupled with the fact of breach of statutory duty cast on the returning officer by Rule 63 did make out a case for ordering a recount of ballot papers by the High Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 60 - M Rangnath - Full Document

D.S. Parvathamma vs A. Srinivasan on 31 March, 2003

This Court further held in T.A. Ahammmed Kabeer (supra) -"the last before an Election Judge is ticklish. It is often urged and also held that the success of a winning candidate should not be lightly set aside and the secrecy of ballot must be zealously guarded. On account of a rigid following of these principles the election courts are inclined to lean in favour of the returned candidate and place the onus of proof on the person challenging the result of the election, insisting on strict compliance with the rules of pleadings and excluding such evidence from consideration as is in divergence with the pleadings. However, what has so developed as a rule of practice should not be unduly stretched; for the purity of the election process needs to be preserved unpolluted so as to achieve the predominant goal of democracy that only he should represent the constituency who has been chosen by the majority of the electors. This is the purpose and object of the election law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 88 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Bhag Mal vs Ch. Parbhu Ram And Others on 30 October, 1984

This Court noted the observation made earlier in Bhag Mal v. Ch. Prabhu Ram and Ors., [1985] 1 SCC 61 that the Constitution and connected laws aim at ensuring true democracy functioning in the country and the will of the people to prevail. That can be achieved by allowing the one to represent the constituency who has obtained the majority of valid votes by proper and due process of law. It would really be a mockery of the procedure of law in a situation where it is demonstrated duly in the Court that a person who obtained four votes less than the other next candidate should be declared elected in preference to the others and allowed to represent the constituency.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 25 - A Varadarajan - Full Document
1