MARKIO TADO versus TAKAM SORANG

MARKIO TADO versus TAKAM SORANG

The High Court's Single Judge acted beyond jurisdiction in calling for scientific examination of Form 17A counterfoils and deducing votes, despite a Supreme Court ruling prohibiting such action in this case; the Election Petition was filed only on booth capturing which requires proof of force, not established, and even for improper reception of votes there was no evidence that result was materially affected; hence, the election cannot be voided and judicial discipline under Article 141 required adherence to Supreme Court’s earlier direction.

Parties
Appellant: Markio Tado; Respondent: Takam Sorang
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
10 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal to Supreme Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Election Petition dismissed. Impugned High Court judgment set aside.
Legal Topics
Booth Capturing, Judicial Discipline, Article 141, Corrupt Practices, Improper Reception of Votes, Representation of the People Act
Constitutional Law Election Law Booth Capturing Judicial Discipline Article 141 Corrupt Practices Improper Reception of Votes Representation of the People Act

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Markio Tado

Appellant

Takam Sorang

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal to Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court correctly declared the election void based on alleged booth capturing and improper reception of votes
  2. 2 Whether the Single Judge of the High Court acted within jurisdiction by calling for scientific examination of voters’ signatures and fingerprints on Form 17A
  3. 3 Whether impersonation and double voting are a facet of booth capturing or improper reception of votes

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court's Single Judge acted beyond jurisdiction in calling for scientific examination of Form 17A counterfoils and deducing votes, despite a Supreme Court ruling prohibiting such action in this case; the Election Petition was filed only on booth capturing which requires proof of force, not established, and even for improper reception of votes there was no evidence that result was materially affected; hence, the election cannot be voided and judicial discipline under Article 141 required adherence to Supreme Court’s earlier direction.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Election Petition dismissed. Impugned High Court judgment set aside.

Orders

  • Election Petition No. 1 (AP) of 2009 / 2012 stands dismissed.
  • Impugned judgment and order dated 12.11.2012 of Gauhati High Court set aside.