SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1988 Supreme(SC) 471

E.S.VENKATARAMIAH, K.N.SINGH
Birad Mal Singhvi – Appellant
Versus
Anand Purohit – Respondent


Advocates:
ABHISHEK SINGHVI, G.L.SANGHI, JITENDRA SHARMA, M.R.CALLA, N.M.GHATATE, P.Gaur, S.V.DESHPANDEY

Judgement Key Points

Question 1? Question 2? Question 3?

Key Points: - The validity and mandatory nature of Section 33(5) of the Act for nominees who are electors of a different constituency and the consequence of non-compliance (rejection of nomination) (!) (!) - Whether fresh material can be adduced before the High Court to support eligibility to contest after nomination papers are scrutinized, and the proper standard of evidence for age qualification of candidates (Articles 173, 84, 102, 173, 191) (!) (!) (!) (!) - The appellate court's determination that the High Court erred in evaluating documentary evidence (Exs. 8–12) to prove age; burden of proof on the election petitioner; admissibility and probative value of school/board records in age determination (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

Question 1?

Question 2?

Question 3?


Judgment

SINGH, J. :- This appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Rajasthan dated 18-2-1987 setting aside the election of the appellant to the State Legislative Assembly of Rajasthan from Jodhpur City Assembly Constituency.

2. Election to the State Legislative Assembly of Rajasthan from the constituency No. 183 Jodhpur City was held in the year 1985, nominations papers were filed by 8-2-1985 and the date of scrutiny was 9-2-1985. In all 45 candidates filed their nominations. After scrutiny and withdrawal 21 candidates contested the election, after polling and counting of votes the appellant was declared elected having obtained majority of votes. Anand Purohit, respondent who is an elector in the Jodhpur City constituency No. 183 filed an election petition before the High Court challenging the appellants election, on the ground that the result of election was materially affected on account of improper rejection of nomination papers of three candidates namely, Smt. Umrao Ben, Hukmichand and Suraj Prakash Joshi. The respondent pleaded that Smt. Umrao Ben




















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top