ANIRUDH PRASAD versus RAJESHWARI SAROJ DAS & OTHERS

ANIRUDH PRASAD versus RAJESHWARI SAROJ DAS & OTHERS

A valid ballot paper must be treated as valid for all purposes including counting votes for any candidate. Claiming a vote as valid in favour of another candidate does not require a recriminatory petition unless it amounts to a challenge under Section 97. Rejection of three ballot papers without identification marks was erroneous; their inclusion materially affected the result, requiring the election of the petitioner and setting aside the appellant's election.

Parties
Appellant: Anirudh Prasad; Respondents: Rajeshwari Saroj Das & Others; Respondent: Nathuni Ram (Respondent No. 9); Respondent: Indra Kumar (Respondent No. 18); Respondents: Respondents Nos. 10, 12 and 17
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
20 April 1976
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appeal Before Supreme Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Recriminatory Petition, Ballot Paper Validity, Proportional Representation, Single Transferable Vote
Election Law Recriminatory Petition Ballot Paper Validity Proportional Representation Single Transferable Vote

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anirudh Prasad

Appellant

Rajeshwari Saroj Das & Others

Respondents

Nathuni Ram (Respondent No. 9)

Respondent

Indra Kumar (Respondent No. 18)

Respondent

Respondents Nos. 10, 12 and 17

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appeal Before Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether first preference votes wrongly rejected affected the result of the election
  2. 2 Scope and application of Section 97 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 regarding recriminatory petitions
  3. 3 Validity of ballot papers under Rule 73(2)(d) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961

Ratio Decidendi

A valid ballot paper must be treated as valid for all purposes including counting votes for any candidate. Claiming a vote as valid in favour of another candidate does not require a recriminatory petition unless it amounts to a challenge under Section 97. Rejection of three ballot papers without identification marks was erroneous; their inclusion materially affected the result, requiring the election of the petitioner and setting aside the appellant's election.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment of the High Court confirmed
  • No order as to costs