Stay updated with High Court rulings on election law, covering party deregistration, voting rights of detained MLAs, recounting standards, corrupt practices, and procedural safeguards in nomination
A. Election — Political Parties, Politics and Government Formation — Recognition of a Political Party/Election Symbol — Derecognition/Cancellation of Registration — Exceptions for — Held, three exceptions under registration of political party can be cancelled by ECI are: (i) when registration was secured through fraud or misrepresentation; (ii) if issues arise under sub-section (9) of S. 29-A; and (iii) if political party is declared unlawful by Central Government under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, or any other similar legislation [Govind Yadav v. Union of India, (2024) 5 HCC (Del) 13]
B. Election — Election Statutes, Rules, Regulations, Norms, Etc. — Representation of the People Act, 1951 — Ss. 62(2) and 62(5) — Disqualification either to cast vote in election or to contest election in case of conviction — Non-applicability of Ss. 62(2) and 62(5) in cases relating to grant of permission to MLA, under punitive detention, to participate in Legislative Assembly Session — Held, there is distinction between disqualification of membership and grant of permission to attend proceedings in parliamentary session — Ss. 62(2) and 62(5) of the 1951 Act speaks of prohibition in casting vote or contesting election in case of judgment of conviction — Present case is not a case of conviction and court not dealing with his disqualification either to cast vote in election or considering his right to contest election — Ss. 62(2) and 62(5) of the 1951 Act inapplicable — Permission to participate in Budget Session, not granted — Writ petition dismissed [Hemant Soren v. Enforcement Directorate, (2024) 1 HCC (Jhar) 202]
C. Election — Conduct of Election — Conduct of Election Statutes, Rules, Regulations, Norms, etc. — Election Commission Circular No. 437/6/1, dt. 21-12-2023 — Cl. 6(vi) — Held, officer due to retire in coming six months to be exempted from purview/applicability of the circular — Six months to be reckoned backwards from 30-6-2023 — If officer posted in Home District is due to retire in six months and is holding election related post, officer shall be released of that charge [Dattatraya R. Karale v. Shekhar Balasaheb Genbhau, (2024) 1 HCC (Bom) 435]
D. Election — Elections to Particular Bodies/Offices — Local Government/Bodies/Municipalities/Panchayats/Autonomous and Other Bodies — Electoral roll/Voters List/Voters Register — Cooperative Society — Locus of — Objections raised before District Cooperative Election Officer (DCEO) — Held, member should be a voter — Where a cooperative society is a voter, their authorized representative may raise objections — Person other than defaulters/members not listed in provisional voters list has no locus to raise objections before DCEO — Locus of third person/members to file objection and to insist on other’s inclusion without removing tag “defaulter” by those defaulter members, not permissible — DCEO to decide claims and objections to provisional list of voters — Final list of voters for societies and individuals as members as provided under R. 11 of the 2014 Rules — Fair opportunity granted to objectors — Claims and objections considered and decided within ambit and scope of R. 11 of the 2014 Rules — Defaulter did not raise objections in person [Sanjay v. State Coop. Election Authority, (2024) 1 HCC (Bom) 374]
E. Election — Election Petition/Trial — Practice and Procedure for Election Trial — Pleadings and particulars — Contents/material fact/full particulars — Defects/Vagueness in pleadings — Conditions imperative to direct inspection/recounting of ballot papers — Held, election petition should contain concise statement of material fact, on which petitioner relies, and material supporting allegations made thereunder — Secrecy of ballot is sacrosanct and court cannot pass order of recounting as matter of course — Mere allegation based on petitioner’s belief or suspicion that there was improper reception, refusal or rejection of votes not sufficient to order of inspection or recounting — Held on facts, allegations not definite and precise — Pleadings do not demonstrate irregularity at time of counting and are vague and cryptic — Order of recounting arbitrary and unsustainable [Sarita Yadav v. Saroja Devi, (2023) 1 HCC (All) 736]
F. Election — Conduct of Election — Voting Mechanism: Ballot Paper/Electronic Voting Machine — Re-count of Votes/Ballot papers — Passing order on basis of bare allegations in election petition — Impermissibility of — Held, ordering of recount on basis of bare allegations in election petition not a proper exercise of jurisdiction and a mere fact that there is narrow margin of votes between winning and defeated candidate, not sufficient to direct recount of votes — No justification or prima facie satisfaction recorded by Presiding Office prior to passing order directing for recounting —Writ petition allowed [Vijay Singh v. Rajdeep Singh, (2023) 1 HCC (All) 87]
G. Election — Corrupt Practices/Electoral Offences — Undue Influence/Coercion/Fraud — Suppression of criminal case in election petition — Non-disclosure of criminal antecedents of candidate in entirety and in full detail, held, amounts to corrupt practices of undue influence and election of candidate must be set aside on such ground — Respondent guilty of corrupt practice by not disclosing pending criminal case against him — Acceptance of his nomination was improper/bad in law — Election has to be declared as void in terms of Ss. 100(1)(b), 100(1)(d) and 98(b) of the Act, 1951 — In view of overarching need for transparency and purity, (even though the time has expired), a declaration has to be given [Vemireddy Pattabhirami Reddy v. Yendapal Srinivasulu Reddy, (2023) 1 HCC (AP) 138]
H. Election — Election Petition/Trial — Scope of Interference — Grounds for declaring election void — Improper Acceptance/Rejection of Nomination Paper — Scrutiny of nominations — Extent of jurisdiction of Returning Officer to determine validity of information furnished in nomination papers — Held, duty of Returning Officer to check whether information required is fully furnished at time of filing of affidavit with nomination paper — Power of Returning Officer to reject nomination paper must be exercised sparingly but bar should not be laid so high that justice itself is prejudiced — Not open to Returning Officer to enquire into contentious issues at stage of scrutiny of nomination forms — Avowed purpose of filing affidavit is to make truthful disclosure of relevant matters regarding assets and liabilities — As respondent’s nomination paper suffered from defects, it is case of improper acceptance of his nomination paper by Returning Officer, covered by rigors of S. 100(1)(d)(i) of the Representation of the People Act [P. Milany v. S. Arumugam, (2023) 1 HCC (Mad) 548]
