MAHADEO versus BABU UDAI PRATAP SINGH AND OTHERS

MAHADEO versus BABU UDAI PRATAP SINGH AND OTHERS

Misprinting of respondent's name amounted to non-compliance with Rule 22 but did not automatically void the election; material effect must be proved, and since respondent failed to prove material effect, the challenge to appellant's election cannot be sustained.

Parties
Appellant: Mahadeo; Respondent No. 1: Babu Udai Pratap Singh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
10 November 1965
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Determination
Outcome
Appeal allowed; election petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Invalidity of Election, Irregularity in Ballot Paper, Misprinting of Candidate's Name, Material Impact on Election Result

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mahadeo

Appellant

Babu Udai Pratap Singh

Respondent No. 1

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Determination

  1. 1 Whether misprinting of respondent's name on ballot paper renders appellant's election invalid under s. 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951
  2. 2 Whether such misprinting constituted an irregularity in the form or design of the ballot paper under Rule 56(2)(g) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961
  3. 3 Whether the non-compliance with Rules materially affected the result of the election

Ratio Decidendi

Misprinting of respondent's name amounted to non-compliance with Rule 22 but did not automatically void the election; material effect must be proved, and since respondent failed to prove material effect, the challenge to appellant's election cannot be sustained.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; election petition dismissed

Orders

  • Order of High Court set aside
  • Election petition dismissed with costs throughout