Category: Election Laws

JK NC was entitled to the “plough” symbol and set aside the LADHC election notification S.O.53 published vide No.Secy/Election/2023/290-301 dated 05.08.2023 – A fresh Notification shall be issued within seven days from today for elections to constitute the 5th Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council, Kargil – R1 is declared entitled to the exclusive allotment of the Plough symbol for candidates proposed to be put up by it.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION TERRITORY OF LADAKH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. JAMMU AND KASHMIR NATIONAL CONFERENCE AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and…

Representation of People Act, 1951 – the election petition contained on affidavit and also a verification. In this very affidavit, the election petitioner has sworn on oath that the paragraphs where he has raised allegations of corrupt practice are true to the best of his knowledge. Though there is no separate and an independent affidavit with respect to the allegations of corrupt practice, there is substantial compliance of the requirements under Section 83(1)(c) of the Act.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH THANGJAM ARUNKUMAR — Appellant Vs. YUMKHAM ERABOT SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI. and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha,…

Chhattisgarh Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995 – Section 80 – Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 – Rule 6 – Election Petition – Relief for re-counting of votes – Election Petition seeking relief for re-counting of votes only, without seeking any other reliefs i.e., declarations as contemplated in Rule 6, would not be tenable in the eye of law

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DHARMIN BAI KASHYAP — Appellant Vs. BABLI SAHU & OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ. ) Civil…

HELD In order to ensure the purity of the election process it was thought by our Constitution- makers that the responsibility to hold free and fair elections in the country should be entrusted to an independent body which would be insulated from political and/or executive interference.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SUVENDU ADHIKARI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and Manoj Misra,…

Representation of the People’s Act, 1951 – Ss 13(1)(a) and 100(1)(d)(iv) – (CPC) – Order 7 Rule 11(a) -In absence of material facts constituting cause of action for filing Election petition under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the said Act, the Election petition is required to be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC read with Section 13(1)(a) of the RP Act – Election petition dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KANIMOZHI KARUNANIDHI — Appellant Vs. A. SANTHANA KUMAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ. ) Civil…

Section 116A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 HELD appellant-successful candidate was not born on 30.09.1990 and was not twenty-five years old at the time of filing the nomination as the appellant has been unable to prove the said fact – the date of birth of the appellant as 01.01.1993 which have been proved the election petitioner. The issuance of the fresh passport during the pendency of the Election Petition of no value. Appeal dismissed

FULL BENCH MOHD. ABDULLAH AZAM KHAN — Appellant Vs. NAWAB KAZIM ALI KHAN — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi, B.V. Nagarathna and B.V. Nagarathna JJ. ) Civil Appeal No(S).…

You missed

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 120(b), 153(A) and 153(AA) – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Sections 13, 17, 18, 18(B), 38 and 39 – The case involves the Popular Front of India (PFI), an extremist Islamic organization accused of spreading extremist ideology, committing terrorist acts, raising funds for terrorism, and recruiting members in Tamil Nadu – The central issue is whether the respondents, accused of serious offenses under the IPC and UAPA, should be granted bail – The Union of India, represented by NIA, argues that the High Court failed to appreciate the gravity of the offenses and the prima facie evidence against the respondents – The defence contends that the allegations are vague and the evidence, particularly the statements of protected witnesses, is unreliable – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order granting bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offenses and the sufficiency of prima facie evidence – The Court found that the High Court did not properly consider the material evidence and recorded perverse findings regarding the involvement of the respondents in the alleged offences – The Court relied on the provisions of the UAPA and past judgments to establish the standards for granting bail in cases involving terrorism – The Supreme Court concluded that the respondents should not be released on bail, given the reasonable grounds to believe the accusations against them are prima facie true and the potential threat to national security.