Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 48 (0.31 seconds)Section 83 in The Representation of the People Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Section 86 in The Representation of the People Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
The Representation Of The People Act, 1950
Section 81 in The Representation of the People Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Section 87 in The Representation of the People Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Azhar Hussain vs Rajiv Gandhi on 25 April, 1986
28. In para 53(1)(E) of the election petition the appellant stated that as per Section 123(7) of the Representation of People Act, Rajiv Gandhi's workers with his consent took help from the government officers and high police officers and people of government departments for securing votes of the electors. These officials flouted all rules and laws particulars of which are as under. Thereafter particulars of the help taken from the government officers are detailed in sub-paras (1) to (8). A corrupt practice as contemplated by Section 123(7) contemplates obtaining or procuring by a candidate or his election agent, assistance from the government servants belonging to the classes specified in sub-section (7) of Section 123 for the furtherance of the prospect of the candidate's election. In order to constitute a corrupt practice under Section 123(7), it is essential to clothe the petition with a cause of action which would call for an answer from the returned candidate and it should therefore plead mode of assistance, measure of assistance and all facts pertaining to the assistance. The pleading should further indicate the kind or form of assistance obtained and in what manner the assistance was obtained or procured or attempted to be procured by the candidate for promoting the prospect for his election. The election petitioner must state with exactness the time of assistance, the manner of assistance and the persons from whom assistance was obtained or procured by the candidate as held by this Court in Hardwari Lal v. Kanwal Singh[(1972) 1 SCC 214 : AIR 1972 SC 515 : (1972) 2 SCR 742] and Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi [1986 Supp SCC 315 : AIR 1986 SC 1253 : 1986 All LJ 625] . Allegations contained in sub-paras 1, 2 and 3 of para 53(1)(E) raise a grievance that though the appellant had not appointed any counting agent but still certain persons acted as his counting agents and the Returning Officer did not hold any inquiry into his complaint. Sub-para 4 states that in the Amethi Constituency, there was fear psychosis and it looked as if the police and other government officials wanted to help Rajiv Gandhi. Sub-paras 5 to 8 refer to certain illegalities and irregularities alleged to have been committed by certain persons on the polling day in helping voters to cast their votes and it further alleged that some persons cast votes 100 to 200 times and their signatures were not obtained. These allegations do not make out any charge of corrupt practice within the provisions of Section 123(7) of the Act. As regards para 53(1)(G) it purports to allege a corrupt practice under Section 123(6) of the Act on the ground that Rajiv Gandhi spent Rs 3,15,500 in excess of the amount permitted under the law. We have already discussed this matter earlier.
Section 100 in The Representation of the People Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Resurgence India vs Election Commission Of India & Anr on 13 September, 2013
37. While following the ratio in Union of India v. Association for democratic Reforms and another, supra, in Resurgence India, supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is sufficient if the candidate fills up the columns in the affidavit sufficiently to the satisfaction of the Returning Officer with the relevant and necessary information.