BODDULA KRISHNAIAH AND ANR. versus STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER, A.P. AND ORS.

BODDULA KRISHNAIAH AND ANR. versus STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER, A.P. AND ORS.

Once an election process is set in motion, High Courts are not justified in interfering with the process or giving directions that would result in stalling or postponing the declaration of results or conduct of fresh polls, even if the writ petition is maintainable. Any disputes regarding the conduct of election or inclusion of eligible voters must be addressed through an election petition as provided by statute and rules, not by interim court orders.

Parties
Appellant: Boddula Krishnaiah; Respondent: State Election Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh; Respondent: Andhra Pradesh State; Respondent: Respondents 6-42 (residents of Narayanpur village)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
20 March 1996
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Order of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Proceedings
Outcome
Appeal allowed; impugned order of High Court set aside.
Legal Topics
Interference With Election Process, Electoral Rolls, Remedies in Election Disputes
Election Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Interference With Election Process Electoral Rolls Remedies in Election Disputes

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Boddula Krishnaiah

Appellant

State Election Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh

Respondent

Andhra Pradesh State

Respondent

Respondents 6-42 (residents of Narayanpur village)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Order of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether High Court is justified in interfering with the election process after the poll is completed
  2. 2 Whether persons unlawfully deleted from the electoral rolls may be allowed to vote after the poll has concluded

Ratio Decidendi

Once an election process is set in motion, High Courts are not justified in interfering with the process or giving directions that would result in stalling or postponing the declaration of results or conduct of fresh polls, even if the writ petition is maintainable. Any disputes regarding the conduct of election or inclusion of eligible voters must be addressed through an election petition as provided by statute and rules, not by interim court orders.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; impugned order of High Court set aside.

Orders

  • High Court's direction not to declare election result or conduct fresh poll for 20 persons is set aside.
  • Respondents may seek remedy by way of election petition as provided in the Act and Rules.