Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
India decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Supreme Court held that Rule 7A required disclosure of a candidate’s spouse’s properties too, and remanded the matter for fresh cognizance.
Because the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016 provides a statutory and efficacious mechanism (Section 131H) to redress grievances arising during Panchayat elections, Article 243-O of the Constitution bars High Court writ jurisdiction under Article 226 in such matters; accordingly the High Court's interim order directing allotment of a symbol and participation was beyond its jurisdiction and is set aside.
Source excerpt
The petitioner was convicted under Section 138 NI Act and failed to disclose that conviction in the affidavit filed under Rule 24-A when submitting her nomination; Rule 24-A is mandatory and non-disclosure rendered the affidavit false, led to improper acceptance of the nomination, and deprived voters of material information so as to void the election under Section 22(1)(d)(iii) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961. The fact that the conviction was later set aside is immaterial to the eligibility assessment as on the date of nomination, and no exceptional circumstances justified inte…
Source excerpt
The Court held that the law requires 'substantial compliance' with the Form 25 affidavit requirement in the proviso to Section 83(1)(c) rather than strict formality, that defects in such affidavits may be curable but this is a question of fact to be determined by the High Court by examining the extent of compliance and whether defects were curable and timely cured, and therefore remitted the matter to the High Court to identify and enumerate defects, assess substantial compliance and curability, and re-determine maintainability and further proceedings.
Source excerpt
Non-disclosure by the returned candidate of income figures in the Form 26 affidavit for four financial years, shown as ‘Nil’, was a procedural/technical defect which was not of substantial character; substantial compliance existed because assets, sources of income, profession, PAN and the latest ITR (2022-23) were disclosed, there was no proof of deliberate concealment or disproportionate income, no corrupt practice was proved, and the nomination was not improperly accepted; consequently the election could not be declared void under Sections 100(1)(d)(i), 100(1)(b) or 100(1)(d)(iv).
Source excerpt
The High Court's interim order was quashed because the writ petition constituted an abuse of process: the petitioner singled out one party and one scheme among many similar schemes nationally, rushed to the High Court within three days of filing a representation to the ECI without affording the Commission a reasonable opportunity to act, and thus the petition was misconceived in law; accordingly the interim prohibition could not be sustained and the appeals were allowed with costs.
Source excerpt
The High Court erred in voiding the election because the Election Petitioner failed to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the Appellant had ceased to be a Hindu Parayan of Kerala; a caste/community certificate duly issued under the statutory scheme cannot be challenged in an election petition where the statute provides its own remedy, and the burden of proof to displace the Appellant’s status was not discharged by the petitioner (paras 31-36, 40-41, 57-59, 64).
Source excerpt
Given that three of the four candidates questioned the propriety of the election, material electoral records (the Presiding Officer's diary) were missing and could not be located despite efforts, and there were allegations of improper conduct at the polling area (including use of police to remove the appellant), the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was prima facie justified in directing a recount of the votes for the relevant booths; the High Court's order setting aside that direction was therefore set aside and the recount order restored.
Source excerpt
The writ petition is maintainable because Article 212(1) does not bar judicial review of legislative decisions or administrative actions of legislative bodies; Constitutional Courts can review the proportionality of punishments imposed on members; applying that principle, the expulsion of the petitioner was excessive and disproportionate and therefore the Court, exercising its powers under Article 142, treated the period already undergone as suspension, set aside the expulsion insofar as punishment and directed immediate reinstatement while quashing the Election Commission press note regardin…
Source excerpt
The Court delivered differing opinions: one Judge (Pankaj Mithal, J.) held that interim bail for the purpose of contesting elections or campaigning is not permissible, affirmed the High Court's refusal of interim bail and dismissed the SLP with liberty to seek regular bail; the other Judge (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) held that constitutional courts retain jurisdiction to grant bail notwithstanding statutory restrictions and, on the particular facts (prolonged custody since March 2020, bail in a majority of related cases, and the pendency of trial), granted limited interim bail subject to condi…
Source excerpt
Explore more
