US Constitution Trumps Presidential Tariff Powers
28 Feb 2026
Non-Compliance with Court Summons Amounts to Contempt: Allahabad HC Issues Warrant Against HDFC Life Branch Head in Cheating Bail Case
02 Mar 2026
Bank Can Adjust OTS Deposit on Borrower Default, No Cheating u/s 420 IPC: Delhi High Court
02 Mar 2026
Divij Kumar Quits CMS INDUSLAW for Independent Practice
03 Mar 2026
Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
ARUN R. PEDNEKER
Narsingrao s/o. Nivruttirao Udgirkar – Appellant
Versus
Shivaji s/o. Bandappa Kalge – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
Arun R. Pedneker, J.
1. Election Petition Nos. 3 of 2024 and 6 of 2024 are filed, challenging the election of respondent No. 1 – Shivaji Bandappa Kalge, the returned candidate from 41-Latur (SC) Parliamentary Constituency, State of Maharashtra for the election held on 7.5.2024 on the ground of qualification or disqualification of the returned candidate by contending that the returned candidate does not belong to the ‘Mala Jangam’ Scheduled Caste category as declared by him in his nomination papers. Both the petitions are taken up for hearing jointly in view of the provisions of section 86 (3) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the R.P. Act’ for short).
2. In Election Petition No. 3/2024, the petitioner seeks declaration that on the date of election, the returned candidate/respondent No. 1 was not qualified to be chosen to fill the seat in the House of People from 41-Latur (SC) Parliamentary Constituency reserved for Scheduled Caste member or he was not having requisite qualification within the meaning of Section 4 (a) of the R.P. Act, to be chosen to
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.
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 central legal point established in the judgment is that a person with a case based on falsehood has no right to approach the Court, and knowingly producing fabricated and fraudulent documents to ....
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....
Caste certificates issued prior to 1996 remain valid; improper rejection of nomination based on authority understanding leads to election void.
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