Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Election petition discloses all material facts as are required to be disclosed in law. No material fact upon which the petitioner relies, be it positive or negative, has been concealed in the petition. Law does not obligate the petitioner to project respondent’s case in his petition.
Supreme Court reiterated that the Election Petition should not be rejected at the very threshold where there is a “substantial compliance” of the provisions.
“The petitioners have not averred as to how the result of the returned candidate can be affected by minor deficiencies. Thus, the petitioners have failed to make out any cause of action.”
The Congress candidate Narendra Patel filed an election petition alleging that the BJP MP Gyaneshwar Patil suppressed material information in his affidavit in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections for the Khandwa constituency.
“Election law should be interpreted strictly, particularly, with regard to the prescribed period of limitation for the purposes of entertaining the election petition inasmuch as there is no provision qua applicability of the Limitation Act.”
Respondent submitted that present petition is not maintainable, at this stage, in view of the bar under Article 329(b) of the Constitution and the petitioner has the remedy of filing an election petition after the elections are over.
Madhya Pradesh High Court issued notice to Congress MLA and Leader of Opposition, Umang Singhar to respond to the allegations of adopting corrupt practices.
The petitioner, Congress candidate PC Sharma, has alleged irregularities in the election process, specifically regarding the functioning of EVMs.
The alleged non-compliance with statutory and Election Commission mandated regulations, and their legal effect, cannot be examined through a summary proceeding under Order VII Rule 11, CPC, or even under Order XII Rule 6, CPC.
DMK MP Kanimozhi Karunanidhi’s election was challenged on the ground that she had intentionally supressed the information about the payment of income tax of her spouse.
Madhya Pradesh High Court | Vishal Dhagat, J., dismissed the election petition filed by the petitioner, after giving repeated opportunities
The Court cannot be oblivious to the fact that today people rush to Courts to file cases in profusion, under this attractive name of public interest.
Supreme Court: In a Special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution against a judgment passed by the High
“Once there is an affidavit, albeit not in Form 25, the appropriate course would be to permit an affidavit to be filed in Form 25.”
Himachal Pradesh High Court: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J., while dismissing the present petition on lack of merits, said, “… election process has
“To hold that a Member of the Legislative Assembly stood disqualified even before he was convicted would grossly violate his substantive right to be treated as innocent until proved guilty.”
Supreme Court: In a case where the Kerala High Court had refused to entertain the plea of Saritha Nair who was disqualified
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of SA Bobde, CJ* and AS Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ, while upholding Allahabad High Court’s order
Himachal Pradesh High Court: Ajay Mohan Goel J., while allowing the present petition, set aside the orders of the preceding authority holding
Ex-BSF Jawan Tej Bahadur’s nominations were rejected by the returning officer for want of a certificate to the effect that he has not been dismissed for corruption or disloyalty to the State.