NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY
Gajanand Shahi – Appellant
Versus
Sudarshan Kumar – Respondent
Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J.—I have already heard Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Ansul, learned senior counsel, assisted by learned counsel Mr. Madhav Raj for the sole respondent.
2. The petitioner has filed this election petition for setting aside the election of the sole respondent, who has been declared elected as a member of Bihar Legislative Assembly from 170, Barbigha Assembly Constituency. The election was held on 28.10.2020 and the result was declared on 10.11.2020. The ground for setting aside the election, as claimed by the petitioner, is improper acceptance of the nomination paper of the sole respondent by the Returning Officer.
3. As per the averments in the petition, altogether 11 contestants were there in the electoral fray/arena, including the petitioner and the sole respondent. On the date of scrutiny i.e. 09.10.2020, the nomination paper of Shri Ajay Kumar, an independent candidate, was found incomplete and it was rejected by the Returning Officer, but at the same time, the Returning Officer had accepted the nomination paper of the sole respondent which too was incomplete. The correct and material information were not given in
Kisan Shankar Kathore vs. Arun Dattatray Sawant
Karim Uddin Barbhuiya vs. Aminul Haque Laskar
Union of India vs. Association For Democratic Reforms
People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) vs. Union of India
Mandatory disclosure of information by contesting candidates in Panchayat Raj elections, and the consequences of non-disclosure or suppression of information.
The election of a candidate can be declared void if they fail to disclose material information in their nomination, affecting the election outcome, as per the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act.
The failure to rectify substantial defects in a nomination paper justifies its rejection under the Representation of People Act, 1951.
The nomination was rightly rejected due to substantial defects which could not be corrected post-deadline, validating the Returning Officer’s actions.
The burden of proof in election petitions alleging improper acceptance of nominations lies with the petitioner to show material effect on election results.
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.