C. K. THAKKER
Sardar Harcharan Singh Brar – Appellant
Versus
Sukh Darshan Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT
R.C. Lahoti, CJI-Elections to the Punjab Legislative Assembly were held in the month of January-February, 2002. We are concerned with 105 Muktsar Assembly Constituency. There were 12 candidates in the fray. The constituency went to polls and after counting the result was declared on 24.2.2002. Sukh Darshan Singh, respondent No.1, who contested as an independent candidate, secured 32,465 valid votes while the appellant Sardar Harcharan Singh Brar, who was fielded by the Congress party, secured 32,265 valid votes. Other candidates secured lesser votes. The respondent No.1 was declared elected.
2. The appellant filed an election petition under sections 80, 80A and 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter the Act , for short). The main grounds on which the election of respondent No.1 was sought to be set aside were that the nomination of one on the respondents was improperly accepted which had resulted in the result of the election being materially affected and that the respondent No.1 was guilty of having committed the corrupt practice of obtaining the assistance of a police officer within the meaning of Section 123(7) of the Act. Several instances of comm
Samant N. Balakrishna and another v. George Fernandez and others
Raj Narain v. Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi and another
H.D. Revanna v. G. Puttaswamy Gowda and Ors. (1999) 2 SCC 217. (Para 11)
V.S. Achuthanandan v. P.J. Francis and Anr.
Mahendra Pal v. Ram Dass Malander and Ors.
G. Mallikarjunappa and Anr. v. Shamanur Shivashankarappa and Ors.
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.