D. V. S. S. SOMAYAJULU
Vemireddy Pattabhirami Reddy, S/o Rajarami Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Yendapalli Srinivasulu Reddy – Respondent
ORDER :
PRELUDE:
2. This famous quote of a British leader was referred to by his Lordship Justice Krisha Iyer in para 8 of Ramakrishna Hegde v. Election Commission of India, (1980) 3 SCC 286 case.
3. This little Indian‘s desire to know; to be fully aware of the antecedents of his elected representatives so as to make an informed choice is the crux of the matter. This desire of the ‘little Indian’ to know; to be fully aware is supported and encouraged by a large number of proactive judgments of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India.
4. Facts/Backdrop
This Election Petition is filed for the following prayer:
(b) Declare the acceptance of the nomination paper filed by the 1st Respondent/the Returned candidate with substantial defects in the affidavit as illegal improper and consequently set aside/ reject the same.
(c) Direct re
Durai Muthuswami v. N. Nachiappan
People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 399] (SCC p. 453
Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque [AIR 1955 SC 233]
Kalyan Singh Chouhan v. C.P.Joshi
Kisan Shankar Kathore v. Arun Dattatray Sawant
Madiraju Venkata Ramana Raju v. Peddireddigari Ramachandra Reddy
Mairembam Prithviraj v. Pukhrem Sharatchandra Singh
Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India
People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India
Resurgence India v. Election Commission of India
Ramakrishna Hegde v. Election Commission of India
Sheo Sadan Singh v. Mohan Lal Gautam
S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath [(1994) 1 SCC 1]
V.S. Achuthanandan v. P.J. Francis [(1999) 3 SCC 737]
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.