Karnataka HC Notices Sri Lankan Judge's Rights Plea
07 Mar 2026
Karnataka Proposes Social Media Ban for Under-16s
07 Mar 2026
Justice Dharmadhikari Sworn In as 55th Madras HC Chief Justice
07 Mar 2026
Punjab HC Acquits Ram Rahim in Journalist Murder
07 Mar 2026
Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
ABHAY S. OKA, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
A. Raja – Appellant
Versus
D. Kumar – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
This is an appeal preferred under Section 116-A1[‘116-A. Appeals to Supreme Court.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court on any question (whether of law or fact) from every order made by a High Court under Section 98 or Section 99.
(2) Every appeal under this Chapter shall be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of the order of the High Court under Section 98 or Section 99:
Provided that the Supreme Court may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within such period.’] of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) against the Final Judgment and Order dated 20.03.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Judgment’)2[2023:KER:16955 | 2023 SCC OnLine Ker 1643 | (2023) 2 KLT 716 | (2023) 2 KLJ 1.] passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam (hereinafter referred to as the ‘High Court’), in Election P
The Supreme Court clarified that election petitions challenging caste qualifications must prove allegations beyond a reasonable doubt, and a valid caste certificate remains presumptively valid unless....
The Caste Scrutiny Committee's determination of caste validity is exclusive and cannot be challenged in election petitions without clear evidence of fraud or error.
Caste certificates must be challenged through statutory procedures, not writ petitions; disputes regarding caste status are to be resolved within the framework of the applicable legislation.
The court affirmed the validity of the caste certificate of the respondent and dismissed the election petition for lack of merit, emphasizing that caste status disputes must be resolved by the Caste ....
The main legal point established is that an Election Petition must disclose a cause of action and contain material facts and particulars to be maintainable.
Caste status is determined by the state of origin, and individuals migrating to another state cannot claim benefits of reservation in the new state.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article