Application of Limitation Act, 1963 on Election Petition under Representation of People Act.
The first respondent filed an election petition in the first instance to which there was an objection to maintainability under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. Confronted with the objection under Order 7 Rule 11, the first respondent obviated a decision thereon by withdrawing the election petition. The grant of liberty to file a fresh election petition cannot obviate the bar of limitation. The fresh election petition filed by the first respondent was beyond the statutory period of 30 days and was hence liable to be rejected. Continue reading “Delay in filing election petition”
Supreme Court Refused to countermand West Bengal Panchayat Elections:
These were the reasons given by Supreme Court for declining to interfere:
“[I]t would be inappropriate for this Court to exercise its jurisdiction to interdict the declaration of results of the uncontested seats. First and foremost, it is necessary for the Court to notice that no specific relief was claimed before the High Court in regard to those seats where there was no contest. Neither were there adequate pleadings nor indeed were specific prayers set up before the High Court when its jurisdiction under Article 226 was invoked. The proceedings before the High Court were brought by several political parties, each of whom would have been well aware of the situation on the ground and the need to formulate an adequate basis in fact to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court. Absent such a factual foundation, the High Court dealt with the only issue which had been addressed, which was the plea that nominations should be allowed to be filed in the electronic form. No other plea was raised.
Continue reading “West Bengal Panchayat Elections”
Fundamental right of citizens to know about financial position of a Candidate.
The petitioner submits that the first step in the collection of data should be to call upon those who seek to get elected to a legislative body to make a declaration of – (i) their assets and those of their ASSOCIATES (which is already a requirement under Section We must make it clear that nothing in law prevents a vigilant citizen from collecting such data for initiating appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. 33 of the RP Act of 1951 etc.); and (ii) the sources of their income.
The information regarding the sources of income of the CANDIDATES and their ASSOCIATES, would in our opinion, certainly help the voter to make an informed choice of the candidate to represent the constituency in the LEGISLATURE. It is, therefore, a part of the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a).
Continue reading “Declaration of assets by an Election Candidate”
Nature of ex parte order:
Order 9 Rule 6 of Civil Procedure Code 1908, provides that When the plaintiff appears and the defendant does not appear when the suit is called on for hearing, if it is proved that the summons was duly served:
“(a)……………………………………………. the Court may proceed ex parte”.
The whole question is, what do these words mean?
our laws of procedure are based on the principle that, as far as possible, no proceeding in a Court of law should be conducted to the detriment of a person in his absence. There are of course exceptions, and this is one of them. When the defendant has been served and has been afforded an opportunity of appearing, then, if he does not appear, the Court may proceed in his absence. But, be it noted, the Court is not directed to make an ex parte order. Continue reading “What is the meaning of ex parte?”
Proper procedure or withdrawal of a contesting candidate.
Relevant law is section 37 of Representation of Peoples Act, which is as under:
37. Withdrawal of candidature.—
(1) Any candidate may withdraw his candidature by a notice in writing which shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed and shall be subscribed by him and delivered before three O’clock in the afternoon on the day fixed under clause (c) of section 30 to the returning officer either by such candidate in person or by his proposer, or election agent who has been authorised in this behalf in writing by such candidate.
(2) No person who has given a notice of withdrawal of his candidature under sub-section (1) shall be allowed to cancel the notice. 3[(3) The returning officer shall, on being satisfied as to the genuineness of a notice or withdrawal and the identity of the person delivering it under sub-section (1), cause the notice to be affixed in some conspicuous place in his office.
Election result in case of fraudulent withdrawal:
When there are only two contesting candidates, and one of them is under a statutory disqualification, votes cast in favour of the disqualified candidate may be regarded as thrown away, irrespective of whether the voters who voted for him were aware of the disqualification. This is not to say that where there are more than two candidates in the field for a single seat, and one alone is disqualified, on proof of disqualification all the votes cast in his favour will be discarded and the candidate securing the next highest number of votes will be declared elected. In such a case, question of notice to the voters may assume significance, for the voters may not, if aware of the disqualification have voted for the disqualified candidate. Continue reading “Election Law: Withdrawal of Nomination.”
Doctrine of necessity overrides
the principle of apprehended bias
Facts of the case:
Ms. J. Jayalalitha was elected to the Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu on or, the AIADMK ticket in the General Elections held in June 1991 and on being elected as the leader of the party she was sworn-in as the Chief Minister of the State. On 2.10.1992, Dr. Subramanian Swamy preferred a petition to the State Governor under Article 192 of the Constitution of India alleging that the Chief Minister had incurred a disqualification of being a member of the Legislative Assembly of the State, in that, she being a partner in the partnership firm run in the name and style of Messrs Jaya Publications had entered into a contract with the State Government and which contract was subsisting on the date of the petition, in view of sub-clause (e) of clause (1) of Article 191 of the Constitution read with Section 9A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951
The question was whether the Chief Election Commissioner against whom she had expressed her apprehension of Bias, should be recused from the proceedings or he has to act in an advisory capacity, in case of dead lock, on the basis of Doctrine of Necessity. Continue reading “Doctrine of necessity and Bias”