LOK PRAHARI versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS

LOK PRAHARI versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Rule 39-AA is constitutionally valid in light of the Constitution Bench decision in Kuldip Nayar v Union of India: Parliament may legitimately regulate Council of States elections by prescribing an open ballot to prevent cross-voting and maintain party discipline, and the provision that the ballot is taken back and cancelled if an elector refuses to show it to the authorised party agent regulates rather than abolishes the right to vote; the proviso to Section 33 requiring ten proposers for candidates not set up by recognised parties is a matter of legislative policy and is not per se discriminatory.

Parties
Petitioner: Lok Prahari; Respondent: Union of India & Ors
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
27 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (civil) No. 1141 of 2020 Under Article 32 of the Constitution / Final Judgment (petition Dismissed)
Outcome
Writ petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Open Ballot, Secret Ballot, Proportional Representation, Nomination Requirements, Article 80(4), Article 14
Constitutional Law Election Law Administrative Law Open Ballot Secret Ballot Proportional Representation Nomination Requirements Article 80(4) +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lok Prahari

Petitioner

Union of India & Ors

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (civil) No. 1141 of 2020 Under Article 32 of the Constitution / Final Judgment (petition Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Rule 39-AA of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 is constitutionally valid under Article 80(4) and Article 14 and contrary to Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951
  2. 2 Whether the proviso to Section 33 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is constitutionally valid

Ratio Decidendi

Rule 39-AA is constitutionally valid in light of the Constitution Bench decision in Kuldip Nayar v Union of India: Parliament may legitimately regulate Council of States elections by prescribing an open ballot to prevent cross-voting and maintain party discipline, and the provision that the ballot is taken back and cancelled if an elector refuses to show it to the authorised party agent regulates rather than abolishes the right to vote; the proviso to Section 33 requiring ten proposers for candidates not set up by recognised parties is a matter of legislative policy and is not per se discriminatory.

Court Disposition

Writ petition dismissed

Orders

  • Writ petition dismissed
  • Pending application, if any, stands disposed of