Topic
The Representation of the People Act, 1950 and 1951 governs electoral processes in India, including voter registration, candidate eligibility, election petitions, and disqualifications.
An election petition must be filed in person by the petitioner under Section 81 RP Act, the Supreme Court ruled, and non-compliance results in dismissal under Section 86(1). The decision reinforces procedural strictness for election disputes, impacting petitioners and the electoral process.
The Delhi High Court quashed the ECI's mandate requiring Booth Level Agents to undertake verification of enumeration forms in Special Intensive Revision, holding that Section 31 RP Act confines BLA liability to photograph matching. The court deemed the blanket undertaking requirement arbitrary as the statutory duty to verify electoral rolls rests with Booth Level Officers, not party-appointed agents.
The court dismissed a writ petition seeking investigation of a returned candidate’s alleged asset concealment, holding that Article 329(b) precludes judicial review of post-election disclosures. Such grievances must be raised through a timely election petition under the Representation of the People Act, limiting the use of writ jurisdiction for election-related matters.
The Bombay High Court has ruled that mere technical violations in nomination forms - such as misplaced photographs or incomplete criminal disclosures - cannot void an election unless the petitioner specifically pleads how those defects materially affected the outcome. This reinforces that election petitions must go beyond procedural complaints and demonstrate real-world impact on voter choice, raising the bar for challengers nationwide.
Madras High Court rules that imposing affidavit requirements on multi-seat candidates to cover bye-election costs exceeds judicial authority, as such reforms require legislative action. The judgment underscores judicial restraint in electoral law, leaving financial burdens of bye-elections to statutory amendments rather than PIL-driven mandates.
Madras High Court reaffirms statutory exclusivity under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, holding that election affidavit discrepancies can only be contested through election petitions, not writ jurisdiction. The ruling bars Article 226 remedies for non-disclosure, reinforcing procedural safeguards for electoral integrity.
Madras HC reaffirms that challenges to candidate affidavit disclosures must be raised exclusively through election petitions under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Article 329(b) precludes alternative remedies like writ petitions, reinforcing the statutory exclusivity of election disputes.
The Gauhati High Court has ruled that voters deleted from electoral rolls cannot bypass statutory remedies under Section 23 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 by directly approaching the High Court under Article 226 - even when elections are days away. This reinforces the principle that administrative纠错 mechanisms must be exhausted before constitutional remedies are invoked, affecting millions of voters in Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, and Arunachal Pradesh who rely on electoral roll corrections.
The Bombay High Court ruled that holding a position in a local authority such as the Agricultural Produce Market Committee does not amount to an office of profit under Article 191 of the Constitution, thereby upholding the election of a candidate who held such a post. The judgment also clarifies that minor procedural defects in nomination forms cannot invalidate an election unless proven to have materially affected the outcome, offering critical clarity to local officeholders seeking public office.
The Supreme Court ruled that when a vehicle is requisitioned by the State for public purposes like elections, the requisitioning authority-not the insurer-bears liability for accidents. This holding clarifies that statutory control under the Motor Vehicles Act overrides legal ownership, directly impacting government bodies and insurers in similar claims.
The Gauhati High Court has ruled that removing voters from electoral rolls without giving them a prior opportunity to be heard violates the principles of natural justice under Section 22 of the Representation of the People Act. Authorities must now complete inclusion proceedings within 14 days and communicate all decisions in writing, safeguarding millions of citizens from arbitrary disenfranchisement.
Gauhati High Court dismisses PIL challenging village transfers between districts, holding that objections must be raised during delimitation consultation, not after notification.
Bombay High Court holds that Section 135-C of RP Act restricts liquor bans to polling areas only, not entire districts. Key precedent for election-related excise orders.