ERA SEZHIYAN versus T.R. BALU AND ORS.
A ballot paper marked with green ink instead of the ball-point pen supplied with blue ink was rightly rejected for non-compliance with mandatory rules; ballot papers in which the figure '1' was marked opposite the candidate's name (even if not in designated column) were valid under Rule 37A, provided the intention was clear and no other express invalidity was present.
- Parties
- Appellant: Era Sezhiyam; Respondent: T.R. Balu; Respondent: Respondents 2-7; Respondent: Respondent 8 (Returning Officer)
- Jurisdiction
- India
- Judgment Date
- 01 March 1990
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal From Madras High Court (election Petition No. 1 of 1986)
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Ballot Validity, Preferential Voting, Rajya Sabha Elections
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Era Sezhiyam
Appellant
T.R. Balu
Respondent
Respondents 2-7
Respondent
Respondent 8 (Returning Officer)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Madras High Court (election Petition No. 1 of 1986)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a ballot paper marked with green ink instead of blue ink was rightly rejected
- 2 Whether ballot papers in which the figure '1' was not marked in the space intended for marking preference were rightly accepted
Ratio Decidendi
A ballot paper marked with green ink instead of the ball-point pen supplied with blue ink was rightly rejected for non-compliance with mandatory rules; ballot papers in which the figure '1' was marked opposite the candidate's name (even if not in designated column) were valid under Rule 37A, provided the intention was clear and no other express invalidity was present.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- No order as to costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment