Category: 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.

2026 INSC 643 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MEENAKSHI NATARAJAN Vs. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER ( Before : Prashant Kumar Mishra and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ. )…

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.

2026 INSC 564 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND OTHERS Vs. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ( Before : Surya Kant, CJI. and Joymalya…

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.

2026 INSC 471 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH URMILA DEVI Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS ( Before : Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. )…

EVM and VVPAT – Reliability – The petitioners challenged the reliability of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) systems, suspecting potential manipulation and demanding transparency in the voting process – The core issues revolved around the integrity of EVMs, the adequacy of VVPAT verification, and the fundamental right of voters to know their votes are correctly recorded and counted – Petitioner argued for a return to paper ballots, provision of VVPAT slips to voters, or 100% counting of VVPAT slips alongside electronic counts, citing concerns over EVM transparency and voter confidence – The Election Commission of India (ECI) defended the EVMs’ success in ensuring free, fair, and transparent elections, highlighting technological safeguards against tampering and the benefits over paper ballots – The Court upheld the current EVM and VVPAT system, dismissing the petitions and suggesting improvements for transparency without disrupting the ongoing electoral process – The Court relied on past precedents, the ECI’s robust procedures, and the absence of cogent material evidence against EVMs to reject the petitions – The judgment referenced constitutional provisions, electoral laws, and previous rulings to support the ECI’s position and the current electoral practices – The Supreme Court concluded that the EVMs and VVPAT systems are reliable, and the petitions were dismissed based on the lack of substantial evidence against the current electoral process.

2024 INSC 341 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS — Appellant Vs. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and…

Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Section 100(1)(d)(iv) – The Court discussed the definition of ‘owner’ under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, to determine the impact of non-disclosure – The Court concluded that non-disclosure of the vehicles did not amount to undue influence and that Kri’s wealth declaration was not significantly affected by the non-disclosed assets – The final decision on the appeals is pending.

2024 INSC 289 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KARIKHO KRI — Appellant Vs. NUNEY TAYANG AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar, JJ. )…

Representation of the People’s Act, 1951 – Sections 83(1)(a), 100(1)(b) and 100(1)(d)(i) – False declaration of educational qualifications and suppression of financial information – The court examined the legal requirements for an Election Petition under the RP Act and concluded that the respondent’s petition lacked concise statements of material facts and full particulars of alleged corrupt practices – The court dismissed the Election Petition, finding it deficient in terms of the mandatory requirements of material facts and particulars needed to constitute a cause of action.

2024 INSC 282 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KARIM UDDIN BARBHUIYA — Appellant Vs. AMINUL HAQUE LASKAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Bela M.…

– The Appellant claimed ‘Mochi’ caste, which was validated and granted by the Scrutiny Committee – The Respondents’ argument that a reserved category in one state cannot be granted reservation in another state has no relevance in this case, as the Appellant’s claim was based on her forefathers’ genealogical caste history – The Scrutiny Committee verified the Appellant’s claim as applicable to Maharashtra – Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, the instant appeals stand allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NAVNEET KAUR HARBHAJANSING KUNDLES @ NAVNEET KAUR RAVI RANA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari…

Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service, and Term of Office) Act, 2023 – Section 7(1) – Selection Committee – The Court analyzes the 2023 Act in light of the Constitution and previous judgments, particularly focusing on the principle of proportionality and the power of judicial review – The Court declines to grant a stay, citing the importance of maintaining the election schedule and the assumption that constitutional post holders will adhere to their roles in accordance with the Constitution – The observations are tentative as the matter is sub-judice. ORDE

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DR. JAYA THAKUR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta, JJ.…

Court reasons that transfers are an administrative matter and judicial intervention is limited to cases of statutory violation or proven malafide intent – The Court analyzes precedents stating that transfers should not be interfered with unless they are prejudicial to public interest or violate norms – The Court concludes by setting aside the Division Bench’s judgment, reinstating the Single Judge’s order, and dismissing the writ petition.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SRI PUBI LOMBI Vs. THE STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) Civil…

Chandigarh Mayor Election: Supreme Court quashed the election result and declared the appellant as the validly elected candidate for the post of Mayor – It also issued a notice to the presiding officer to show cause why criminal proceedings should not be initiated against him under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH KULDEEP KUMAR — Appellant Vs. — Respondent U.T. CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI., J B Pardiwala and Manoj…

You missed