HIGH COURT MALAYA IPOH
VASANTHA KUMAR KRISHNAN – Appellant
Versus
SARAVANAN MURUGAN & ORS – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. election petition must comply with statutory criteria. (Para 1 , 4) |
| 2. preliminary objections can be stated at any time. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. petitioner's locus standi is strictly governed by law. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. compliance with specific procedural rules is mandatory. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. proper service of election petitions is a condition precedent. (Para 12 , 13) |
[1] This petition relates to the general election that was held on 5 May 2013 in the parliamentary constituency of P 072 Tapah in the State of Perak Darul Ridzuan where the 1st respondent was returned as the winning candidate. Having gone through the arguments of all four parties carefully I am inclined to agree with the respondents that the petition is defective and ought to be struck out in limine. There are fundamental defects in the petition which renders it null and void. It is trite principle that an Election COURT has no jurisdiction to try a petition that does not comply with any election law: see Tan Sri Joseph Kurup v. Danny Anthony Andipai ; Attorney General of Malaysia (Intervener), [2009] 3 MLJ 1 FC. The jurisdiction that is conferred on an Election COURT is a peculiar jurisdiction: Hugh S
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.