SAMANT N. BALAKRISHNA ETC. versus GEORGE FERNANDEZ AND ORS. ETC.

SAMANT N. BALAKRISHNA ETC. versus GEORGE FERNANDEZ AND ORS. ETC.

Since the consent of Mr. Fernandez (the candidate) to the alleged corrupt practices by his agents (editor and others) was not proved, the allegations do not fall under s. 100(1)(b) but must be judged under s. 100(1)(d)(ii) of the Representation of the People Act. The petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proof required to show material effect on the election result; thus, the election petition must fail.

Parties
Appellant: Samant N. Balakrishna; Respondent: George Fernandez; Respondent: Second Respondent (Mr. Patil)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
12 February 1969
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Supreme Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Corrupt Practices, Amendment of Pleadings, Burden of Proof, Consent of Candidate
Election Law Corrupt Practices Amendment of Pleadings Burden of Proof Consent of Candidate

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 40 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samant N. Balakrishna

Appellant

George Fernandez

Respondent

Second Respondent (Mr. Patil)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Supreme Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Permissibility of amendments to election petition after limitation period
  2. 2 Agency and consent requirements under Representation of the People Act for corrupt practices
  3. 3 Material effect of corrupt practices on election result

Ratio Decidendi

Since the consent of Mr. Fernandez (the candidate) to the alleged corrupt practices by his agents (editor and others) was not proved, the allegations do not fall under s. 100(1)(b) but must be judged under s. 100(1)(d)(ii) of the Representation of the People Act. The petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proof required to show material effect on the election result; thus, the election petition must fail.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs