Supreme Court of India Judgements

46660 Judgements hosted as on 19/11/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Election Laws

Election Laws

Representation of People Act, 1951 – Sections 81, 83 and 86 – Conduct of Election Rules, 1962 – Section 94A – Dismissal of election petition – Appeal against – Non-submission of Form 25 would not lead to the dismissal of election petition – This was a curable defect and the learned Judge trying the election petition ought to have granted an opportunity to the appellant to file an affidavit in support of the petition in Form 25 in addition to the already existing affidavit filed with the election petition – Non-submission of Form 25 would not lead to the dismissal of the election petition – Appeal allowed.

Dec 16, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH A. MANJU — Appellant Vs. PRAJWAL REVANNA @ PRAJWAL R AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, JJ.…

Election Laws

Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayats Act, 1961 – Section 28 – Motion of no-confidence in Adhyaksha – Provisions of Section 28 which ensured that an elected representative can only stay in power so long as such person enjoys the support of the majority of the elected members of the Zila Panchayat – As soon as such a person loses the confidence of the majority, he becomes unwanted – In a democratic set up, the will of the majority has to prevail.

Sep 11, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SAU. SANGEETA W/O SUNIL SHINDE — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R.…

Election Laws

Election Laws – Declaration of results – State Government through learned counsel as well as the State Election Commission, Uttar Pradesh that necessary measures have been put in place in terms of the guidelines issued from time to time, including the recent Notifications dated 29.04.2021 and 30.04.2021 issued by the State Election Commission – No interference.

May 2, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SACHIN YADAV — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. ) Special Leave…

Election Laws

Rules 4 and 5 of Rules, 1994 as well as Rule 2(b) of Rules, 2007 does in no manner disobey the mandate of Article 243S(4), both can be complied with without any conflict between the two different provisions – Provisions of Section 5(3)(iii) (a) as well as Rules 4 and 5 of Rules, 1994 and Rule 2(b) of Rules, 2007 are not inconsistent with provisions of Article 243S.

Feb 25, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH PARMAR SAMANTSINH UMEDSINH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and M.R. Shah,…

Election Laws

Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Section 8(3) – Disqualification- petitioner was disqualified from contesting the elections in terms of Section 8(3) of the Act. In such circumstances, she could not have maintained an election petition as “a candidate at such election” in terms of Section 81(1). Therefore, the High Court was right in not venturing into an exercise in futility, by taking up the election petition for trial, though the High Court was wrong in rejecting the election petition on the ground of existence of incurable of defects – Special Leave Petition is dismissed.

Dec 15, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SARITHA S. NAIR — Appellant Vs. HIBI EDEN — Respondent ( Before : S.A. Bobde, CJI., A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. ) Special…

Election Laws

Averments do not disclose that the appellant has a cause of action which invest him with right to sue – It is settled that where a person has no interest at all, or no sufficient interest to support a legal claim or action he will have no locus standi to sue – Election Petition has been rightly nipped in the bud- Appeal dismissed.

Nov 25, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH  TEJ BAHADUR — Appellant Vs. SHRI NARENDRA MODI — Respondent ( Before : S. A. Bobde, C.JI., A. S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ.…

You missed

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 376 and 313 — Rape — False promise of marriage — Physical relationship with the complainant under the false promise of marriage, leading to her pregnancy and subsequent abortions — Whether the FIR should be quashed based on the allegations and the delay in filing the complaint — The petitioner argued that the relationship was consensual and the delay in filing the FIR undermines the credibility of the allegations — The respondent claimed that the petitioner deceived her with a false promise of marriage, leading to non-consensual physical relations — The Supreme Court quashed the FIR, noting the long-term consensual relationship and the lack of prima facie evidence for rape under Section 376 IPC —The Court emphasized the delay in filing the FIR and the nature of the relationship, which appeared consensual —The Court referred to previous judgments, highlighting the importance of prima facie evidence and the misuse of legal provisions —The FIR and all proceedings based on it were quashed, preventing abuse of the legal process.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B —Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) — Financial misconduct and conspiracy — Whether the High Court was correct in discharging the respondent from the charges of conspiracy and financial misconduct — The CBI argued that the High Court conducted a mini-trial at the charge-framing stage and that there was sufficient suspicion to frame charges against the respondent — The respondent’s counsel argued that the material in the charge sheet did not make out a case against the respondent and that the High Court rightly discharged him —The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to discharge the respondent, stating that mere suspicion was not enough to frame charges – The Court found that the respondent’s role was limited to signing the memorandum prepared by senior officers and participating in the Management Committee meeting, which approved the proposal — The Court emphasized that the proposal had passed through various committees and that the respondent’s actions did not amount to criminal misconduct — The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was discharged from the charges — The trial against other accused persons will continue.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Municipal Laws

Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1951 — Sections 146, 423 and 488(1) — The Patna Municipal Corporation imposed a royalty on advertisements, which was later increased — The respondents challenged this imposition, arguing it was a tax without legislative backing — Whether the royalty imposed by the Corporation was a tax and if it was legally enforceable without legislative sanction — The Corporation argued that the royalty was agreed upon by the parties and was not a tax — They contended that the enhancement of the rate was within their rights — The respondents argued that the imposition was a tax, which required legislative sanction, and the Corporation had no authority to levy it — The Division Bench quashed the enhancement, ruling that the Corporation had no power to impose the tax without legislative backing — The Court found that the royalty was not a tax but a fee agreed upon by the parties — It held that the Corporation’s actions were within the scope of the agreement — The Court distinguished between royalty and tax, emphasizing that royalty is based on an agreement, not statutory provision — The Court upheld the imposition of royalty as per the agreement but noted that the enhancement in rates was not challenged effectively — The judgment of the Division Bench was set aside.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Constitution

Citizenship Act, 1955 — Section 6A — Special provisions as to citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord — The case involves the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955, which grants citizenship to certain migrants from Bangladesh to Assam —The main issues include whether Parliament had the legislative competence to enact Section 6A, and if Section 6A violates Articles 6, 7, 14, 29, and 355 of the Constitution — Petitioners argue that Section 6A is unconstitutional as it conflicts with Articles 6 and 7, adopts unreasonable cut-off dates, and violates Articles 14, 29, and 355 — Respondents contend that Section 6A is within Parliament’s legislative competence under Article 11 and does not violate the Constitution — The judgment addresses the legislative competence of Parliament, the reasonableness of cut-off dates, and the impact on Assamese cultural identity — The court examines the historical context of citizenship provisions, the legislative intent behind Section 6A, and the scope of judicial review under Article 14 — The court analyzes the constitutional provisions on citizenship, the legislative objective of Section 6A, and the balance between legislative intent and constitutional mandates —The court concludes that Section 6A of the Citizenship Act is constitutional and does not violate the cited Articles of the Constitution.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw