Sita Soren vs Union of India - 2023 Supreme(SC) 1005

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(SC) 1005

D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, A. S. BOPANNA, M. M. SUNDRESH, J. B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA
Sita Soren – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vivek Singh, AOR Mr. Kaushik Laik, Adv. Mr. Akshay Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Shashank Tiwari, Adv. Mr. M V Mukunda, Adv. Mr. Rahul Arya, Adv. Mr. Pratap Shankar, Adv. Ms. Devyani Gupta, Adv. Ms. Tanvi Anand, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Paramjit Singh Patwalia, Sr. Adv. (AC) Ms. Harshika Verma, Adv. Mr. Dipanshu Krishan, Adv. Mr. Gauravjit Singh Patwalia, Adv. Mr. Manan Daga, Adv. Ms. Samradhi Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, AOR Mr. R Venkataramani, AGI Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG Mr. K M Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Kanu Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Chinmayee Chandra, Adv. Mr. K Parmeshwar, Adv. Mr. Udai Khanna, Adv. Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, Adv. Mr. Anmol Chandan, Adv. Mr. Ankur Talwar, Adv. Mr. Anandh Venkataramani, Adv. Mrs. Vijayalakshmi Venkataramani, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Mehrotra, Adv. Ms. Mansi Sood, Adv. Mr. Chitvan Singhal, Adv. Ms. Sonali Jain, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Mr. Kartikey Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Dr. Vivek Sharma, AOR Mr. Anand Nandan, Adv. Mr. Aakarsh, Adv. Ms. Shivangi, Adv. Mr. Hasan Zubair Waris, Adv. Mrs. Mohd. Faiz, Adv. Ms. Savita Kumari, Adv. Mr. Amit Pawan, AOR Mr Gopal Sankaranarayan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Ashwani Kumar Dubey, AOR Ms. Tanya Srivastva, Adv. Mr. Vishal Sinha, Adv. Ms. Shivani Vij, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR

ORDER :

1. The Criminal Appeal arises from a judgment and order dated 17 February 2014 of the High Court of Jharkhand in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 128 of 2013.

2. An election was held on 30 March 2012 for two members of the Rajya Sabha representing the State of Jharkhand. The appellant was a member of the Legislative Assembly belonging to the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha. The allegation against the appellant is that she accepted a bribe from an independent candidate for casting her vote in his favour. However, as borne out from the open balloting for the Rajya Sabha seat, she did not cast her vote in favour of the alleged bribe giver and instead cast her vote in favour of a candidate belonging to her own party. The round of election in question was rescinded and a fresh election was held at which the appellant voted in favour of the candidate belonging to her own party.

3. The appellant moved the High Court for quashing the charge-sheet and the criminal proceedings instituted against her. The appellant relied on the provisions of Article 194(2) of the Constitution. The High Court by the impugned judgment declined to quash the criminal proceedings on the ground that the appellant had not

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2023 Supreme(SC) 1005

D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, A. S. BOPANNA, M. M. SUNDRESH, J. B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRASita Soren – AppellantVersusUnion of India – Respondent

D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, A. S. BOPANNA, M. M. SUNDRESH, J. B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA
Sita Soren – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent