PAOKAI HAOKIP versus RISHANG & ORS.

PAOKAI HAOKIP versus RISHANG & ORS.

The election petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proof required by s. 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951; mere assertions and statistical extrapolation do not establish that the result of the election was materially affected by non-compliance. The election stands.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Paokai Haokip; Respondent: Rishang; Respondent: K. Rajendra Chaudhuri; Respondent: C. S. Sreenivasa Rao
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
12 August 1968
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Judicial Commissioner of Manipur in Election Petition Case No. 2 of 1967 Under S. 116 a of the Representation of the People Act, 1951
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Materially Affected Result, Non Compliance With Election Rules, Burden of Proof in Election Petition
Election Law Materially Affected Result Non Compliance With Election Rules Burden of Proof in Election Petition

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Paokai Haokip

Appellant

Rishang

Respondent

K. Rajendra Chaudhuri

Respondent

C. S. Sreenivasa Rao

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Judicial Commissioner of Manipur in Election Petition Case No. 2 of 1967 Under S. 116 a of the Representation of the People Act, 1951

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether non-compliance with provisions of the Representation of the People Act and its rules materially affected the result of the election as required by s. 100(1)(d)(iv)
  2. 2 Whether the burden of proof to establish that the result was materially affected was discharged by the election petitioner

Ratio Decidendi

The election petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proof required by s. 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951; mere assertions and statistical extrapolation do not establish that the result of the election was materially affected by non-compliance. The election stands.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Election of the returned candidate stands.
  • Election petitioner shall bear only half the appellant’s costs in Supreme Court.