RAGHBIR SINGH versus SURJIT SINGH AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

RAGHBIR SINGH versus SURJIT SINGH AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

Classification of offences as well as the prescription of different periods of disqualification under Section 8(1), (2), and (3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is based on rational criteria and within the legislature's domain; a comparison between distinct classes is not permissible, and the challenge to Section 8(3) on grounds of arbitrariness or discrimination fails.

Parties
Appellant/petitioner: Raghbir Singh; Respondent: Surjit Singh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
22 August 1994
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal and Writ Petition / Appeal From High Court Judgment and Constitutional Challenge
Outcome
Appeal and writ petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Disqualification of Candidates, Classification of Offences for Election Purposes, Arbitrariness in Legislative Classification
Election Law Constitutional Law Disqualification of Candidates Classification of Offences for Election Purposes Arbitrariness in Legislative Classification

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

Parties

Raghbir Singh

Appellant/petitioner

Surjit Singh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal and Writ Petition / Appeal From High Court Judgment and Constitutional Challenge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prescription of period of disqualification under Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is arbitrary or violative of constitutional validity
  2. 2 Whether different periods of disqualification in subsections (1), (2), and (3) of Section 8 are permissible under the Constitution

Ratio Decidendi

Classification of offences as well as the prescription of different periods of disqualification under Section 8(1), (2), and (3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is based on rational criteria and within the legislature's domain; a comparison between distinct classes is not permissible, and the challenge to Section 8(3) on grounds of arbitrariness or discrimination fails.

Court Disposition

Appeal and writ petition dismissed

Orders

  • Appellant/Petitioner to pay costs to respondents
  • Costs quantified at Rs. 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand) only