SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1993 Supreme(SC) 114

L. M. SHARMA, S. MOHAN, S. P. BHARUCHA
Rama Kant Pandey – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent


Advocates:
D.N.DEVEDI, N.A.SIDDIQUI, Niranjana Singh, P.L.SINGAL

JUDGMENT

SHARMA, C.J.I.:—By the present application under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of the Representation of the People (Amendment) Ordinance, 1992 (Ordinance No. 1 of 1992) and the Representation of the People (Second Amendment) Ordinance, 1992 (Ordinance No. 2 of 1992), on the grounds of violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21. By the first Ordinance, Section 52 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (the Act) providing for countermanding elections in certain circumstances has been amended. By the second Ordinance the period of 20 days in Section 30 of the Act has been reduced to 14 days. Later, when the Parliament met, the amendments were incorporated by an amending Act.

2. The provisions of Section 52, as they stood before the amendment, provided for countermanding the election in either of 2 contingencies - (i) if a candidate whose nomination was found valid on scrutiny under Section 36 or who has not withdrawn his candidature under Section 37 died and a report of his death was received before the publication of the list of contesting candidates under Section 38, (ii) if a contesting candidates died and

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top