June 22, 2026 3:07 am

Election Petiton–Disqualification on conviction—Suspension of sentence—Does not amount to temporarily washing out the conviction.

Bysclaw

Apr 20, 2017

This content is restricted to site members. If you are an existing user, please log in. New users may register below.

By sclaw

Related Post

Constitution Election Laws

Constitution of India, 1950 — Arts. 32 and 329(b) — Representation of the People Act, 1951 — S. 100 — Writ petition challenging order of Returning Officer rejecting nomination paper for Rajya Sabha election — Maintainability — Held, not maintainable — Bar contained in Art. 329(b) is absolute and excludes jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 32 (and of the High Court under Art. 226) in respect of all matters connected with conduct of an election, including the scrutiny and rejection of nomination papers — Only remedy available to a candidate aggrieved by rejection of his/her nomination is to file an election petition after conclusion of the election, in the manner provided under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 — Plea of petitioner that she did not seek to obstruct the election but only its fair and transparent completion does not take the case outside the bar of Art. 329(b) — Writ petition accordingly dismissed.

Jun 16, 2026 sclaw

Constitution Election Laws

SIR ::: Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 324 — Representation of the People Act, 1950 — Sections 21(3) — Electoral Rolls — Special Intensive Revision (SIR) — Election Commission of India (ECI) has power to conduct SIR — Commission’s authority under Article 324 operates in conformity with valid law made by Parliament, but parliamentary legislation cannot extinguish Commission’s constitutional function — ECI’s powers supplement law where necessary but cannot override express statutory prohibition — SIR exercise was not in direct conflict with RP Act and 1960 Rules — Exercise subserves constitutional goal of free and fair elections.

May 31, 2026 sclaw

Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 — Section 12C — Election Dispute — Candidate challenging election results — Prescribed Authority passed an order allowing the election petition and directing recounting of votes — Later, after recounting, the authority declared the appellant as the returned candidate — The High Court set aside this order — The Supreme Court held that once the Prescribed Authority passes a final order allowing the election petition, it becomes functus officio and loses jurisdiction to pass further orders — The initial order directing recounting was deemed final, not interim, as it allowed the petition and rejected the respondent’s statement, leaving no scope for further orders after recounting — The High Court was correct in quashing the subsequent proceedings and the declaration of the appellant as elected — Appeal dismissed.

May 12, 2026 sclaw

Categories

Archives

You missed

Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 — Section 59(d), 92 and 95(1) — Delhi Municipal Corporation Service (Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1959 — Regn. 7, Schedule — Disciplinary Authority — Competency of Commissioner to dismiss Group ‘A’ Officer — Substitution of Section 59(d) by Delhi Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 1993, w.e.f. 01.10.1993 — Legislative Intent — Post-1993 amendment, the Commissioner is put in complete control both as the appointing authority and the disciplinary authority — Phrase “subject to any regulation that may be made in this behalf” used in Section 59(d) refers to regulations that may be made in future and not the existing 1959 Regulations — Commissioner held fully competent to pass dismissal orders against Group ‘A’ officers despite old regulations naming the ‘Corporation’ as the disciplinary authority.

Jun 18, 2026 sclaw

Constitution of India, 1950 — Art. 16 and 226 — Public Employment — Direct Recruitment — Eligibility Criteria — Workshop Experience — Pendency of workshop renewal applications — Effect on candidates — Where a recruitment notification mandates a minimum of one year of experience in a Government-approved workshop, candidates cannot be prejudiced or disqualified merely because the workshop’s application for renewal of approval was pending with the State authorities during the period they gained experience — Depriving an otherwise eligible candidate of employment due to an administrative “period of eclipse” or delay on the part of state machinery is arbitrary and discriminatory–Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, 1985 INSC 137, relied on; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Atul Kumar Dwivedi, 2022 INSC 24, Distinguished.

Jun 16, 2026 sclaw

Right to Information Act, 2005 — S. 24(4) — Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment Act, 1947 — S. 2(1), S. 3 — “Intelligence and Security Organisation” — Scope and Applicability of Exemption — Jurisdiction of Special Police Establishment (SPE) — The expression “intelligence and security organisations” under Section 24 of the RTI Act implies that the concerned entity must be statutory or institutionally empowered to handle matters of intelligence and national/state security — The Special Police Establishment (SPE) of Madhya Pradesh, established under Section 2(1) of the Act of 1947, is clothed with a limited jurisdiction restricted strictly to investigating offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and select economic/fraud offenses under Sections 409, 420, and Chapter XVIII of the Indian Penal Code — Because neither the Lokayukt nor the SPE handles matters connected to general ‘intelligence’ and ‘security’, the SPE cannot be deemed an “intelligence and security organisation” under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act — Principle of institutional parity cannot be invoked to grant blanket exemptions to a anti-corruption investigation agency.

Jun 16, 2026 sclaw

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 11, Explanation IV — Constructive Res Judicata — Application of the principle depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, considering the ambit of earlier proceedings and the nexus of the matter to the controversy — It is founded on public policy to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and avoid parties being vexed twice over for the same litigation — Parties are expected to exercise reasonable diligence and bring forward every point that properly belonged to the subject of litigation and which they might and ought to have brought forward — Negligence, inadvertence, or accident in omitting a part of the case does not exempt from its application.

Jun 16, 2026 sclaw