Category: 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.

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.…

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.

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 – 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.

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…

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.

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,…

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.

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…

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.

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

Temple Bye Laws — Oachira Parabrahma Temple — Ancient structure without a building or deity, governed by Bye-laws with three-tier elected committees — Appellants, elected Secretary and President, challenged two High Court orders (2020 and 2023) that removed their committee and appointed an unelected one under an Administrative Head, citing violations of the temple’s Bye-laws and customs —Legality of appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one contrary to the temple’s Bye-laws — Petitioner argues that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction and violated the temple’s governance structure by appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one without proper legal basis — The High Court’s actions were necessary for the efficient administration of the temple until a scheme could be framed and new elections held — The Supreme Court modified the High Court orders, appointing a new retired Judge as Administrative Head to conduct fair elections within four months, while directing all parties to cooperate — The Court emphasized the need to preserve temple properties and governance as per established customs and laws — The Supreme Court struck down the High Court’s order appointing an unelected committee, appointed a new Administrative Head to conduct elections, and directed all parties to cooperate, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the temple’s established governance structure and Bye-laws.