Vijay Laxmi Sadho vs Jagdish - 2001 Supreme(SC) 20

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2001 Supreme(SC) 20

A. S. ANAND, R. C. LAHOTI, SHIVARAJ V. PATIL
Vijay Laxmi Sadho – Appellant
Versus
Jagdish – Respondent

Judgement Key Points

What is the validity of election petitions filed in Hindi language under Rule 2(b) of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules and Article 348(2) of the Constitution? What are the consequences of defects in verification of an affidavit accompanying an election petition under Section 83(1) read with Section 86(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951? What is the proper approach when two benches of coordinate jurisdiction disagree on a point of law related to election petitions and whether such a matter should be referred to a larger bench?

Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)

What is the validity of election petitions filed in Hindi language under Rule 2(b) of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules and Article 348(2) of the Constitution?

What are the consequences of defects in verification of an affidavit accompanying an election petition under Section 83(1) read with Section 86(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951?

What is the proper approach when two benches of coordinate jurisdiction disagree on a point of law related to election petitions and whether such a matter should be referred to a larger bench?

JUDGMENT

This appeal by special leave is directed against an order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated 4th February, 2000 rejecting applications (I.A. Nos. 2806/99 and 5957/99) filed by the appellant, the returned candidate, seeking rejection of an election petition filed by the respondent challenging his election on various grounds contained in those applications.

2. In the elections to the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly, held in 1998, the appellant was declared elected from Assembly Constituency No. 290, Maheshwar. The defeated candidate (Respondent herein) filed an election petition challenging his election on various ground of commission of corrupt practices, detailed in paragraphs 5 to 17 of the election petition. The election petition had been drawn-up in Hindi language. The affidavit filed in support of the election petition was also drawn up in Hindi language.

3. The main objection projected by the appellant in IA 2806/99 to the maintainability of the election petition was that since the affidavit filed in support of allegations of corrupt practice was not drawn up in the manner prescribed by Section 83(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafte

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2001 Supreme(SC) 20

A. S. ANAND, R. C. LAHOTI, SHIVARAJ V. PATILVijay Laxmi Sadho – AppellantVersusJagdish – Respondent

What is the validity of election petitions filed in Hindi language under Rule 2(b) of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules and Article 348(2) of the Constitution?

What are the consequences of defects in verification of an affidavit accompanying an election petition under Section 83(1) read with Section 86(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951?

What is the proper approach when two benches of coordinate jurisdiction disagree on a point of law related to election petitions and whether such a matter should be referred to a larger bench?

Cases Referred (4)

A. S. ANAND, R. C. LAHOTI, SHIVARAJ V. PATIL
Vijay Laxmi Sadho – Appellant
Versus
Jagdish – Respondent