Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961

16 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

SUBRAMANIAN SWAMYversusELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY

2008 INSC 107723 September 2008Dismissed

Subramanian Swamy, as president of the de‑recognised Janata Party, challenged Clause 10A of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, which allows a six‑year grace period for a party that loses its recognised status to retain its exclusive symbol. He argued that the provision was arbitrary, violated

AJAY ARJUN SINGHversusSHARADENDU TIWARI & OTHERS

2016 INSC 119423 August 2016Case Partly allowed

The appellant, a returned MLA, challenged an election petition alleging corrupt practices and excess expenditure under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. He filed an application under Order VI Rule 16 of the CPC seeking to strike out several paragraphs of the petition as frivolous, scandalous or vexatious. The

TANKADHAR TRIPATHYversusDIPALI DAS

2025 INSC 101722 August 2025

The appellant, Tankadhar Tripathy, was elected from the Jharsuguda Assembly Constituency, after which the respondent, Dipali Das, filed an election petition alleging corrupt practices and EVM irregularities. The appellant challenged the petition's maintainability, arguing that the petition lacked a Form 25 affidavit as

ANIL R. DESHMUKHversusONKAR N. WAGH AND ORS.

1999 INSC 1721 January 1999Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Anil R. Deshmukh, filed an election petition challenging the election of Onkar N. Wagh to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly, alleging corrupt practices. The petition required an affidavit under the proviso to Section 83(1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The initial copy of the affid

SHALIGRAM SHRIVASTAVAversusNARESH SINGH PATEL

2002 INSC 56219 December 2002Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined an appeal against the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s order upholding the rejection of a candidate’s nomination in a bye‑election. The Election Commission had instructed Returning Officers to require candidates to fill a proforma disclosing information relevant to disqualification under Section 8

MANDA JAGANATHversusK.S. RATHNAM AND ORS.

2004 INSC 27316 April 2004Leave Granted & Allowed

The first respondent filed a nomination for the Lok Sabha election from Nagarkurnool (SC) constituency, but the Returning Officer rejected his Form B for leaving columns 2‑7 blank and consequently treated him as an independent candidate, refusing to allot the party symbol of Telangana Rashtra Samithi. The respondent an

SETHI ROOP LALversusMRS. MALTI THAPAR AND ORS.

1994 INSC 7215 February 1994

The appellant contested the 1992 Moga Assembly election, losing by seven votes, and filed an election petition alleging that 22 bogus votes were cast for the winning respondent by impersonating dead electors. The petition sought production of the ballot paper account and the marked copies of electoral rolls for five po

S. RUKMINI MADEGOWDAversusTHE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION & ORS

2022 INSC 95814 September 2022Dismissed

The appellant, S. Rukmini Madegowda, was elected as a councillor (later mayor) of the Mysore Municipal Corporation. She filed an affidavit of assets that falsely omitted her husband's property, violating the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act (KMC Act) and the Representation of People Act (RP Act). An election petiti

AJMERA SHYAMversusSMT. KOVA LAXMI & ORS.

2025 INSC 99214 August 2025Dismissed

The appellant, Ajmera Shyam, challenged the election of Smt. Kova Laxmi, alleging that she failed to disclose income shown in her income‑tax returns for four financial years in the Form 26 affidavit, marking it as “Nil”. The High Court dismissed the election petition, holding that the omission was not a substantial def

AJIT SINGHversusBANSI SINGH AND ORS.

1995 INSC 39212 July 1995Dismissed

Ajit Singh challenged the 1991 Haryana Vidhan Sabha election of Bansi Singh under Section 81 of the Representation of People Act, alleging irregularities in vote counting, including a fenced counting hall that restricted agents' view, police presence, the appointment of counting assistants who were relatives of the ret

SMT. NEENA VIKRAM VERMAversusBALMUKUND SINGH GAUTAM & ORS.

2013 INSC 25112 April 2013Appeal(s) allowed

In the 2008 Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly election, Neena Vikram Verma was declared elected by a single vote over Balmukund Singh Gautam, who filed an election petition alleging irregularities in postal ballot counting. Verma responded with a recrimination petition under Section 97 of the Representation of People

MARKIO TADOversusTAKAM SORANG

2013 INSC 33810 May 2013Appeal(s) allowed

In the Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly election of 2009, Markio Tado was declared elected over Takam Sorang. Sorang filed an election petition alleging booth capturing, and later sought forensic examination of voters' counterfoils (Form 17A) to prove impersonation and double voting. The Gauhati High Court Single

ARIKALA NARASA REDDYversusVENKATA RAM REDDY REDDYGARI & ANR.

2014 INSC 764 February 2014Disposed off

The 2009 Legislative Council election for Nizamabad saw a narrow result, leading the defeated candidate to file an election petition alleging wrongful rejection of three votes and wrongful acceptance of one vote. The appellant, who had been declared elected, filed a recrimination petition under Section 97 of the Repres

DR. SMT. SHIPRAversusSHANTI LAL KHOIWAL

1996 INSC 4773 April 1996Dismissed

Dr. SMT. Shipra filed an election petition challenging the election of S.L. Khotwal on grounds of corrupt practices. The petition and its supporting affidavit were served on the returned candidate, but the copy of the affidavit omitted the notarized verification required by Form 25 under Rule 94‑A of the Conduct of Ele

ROOP LAL SINGHversusNACHHATTAR SINGH

1982 INSC 802 November 1982Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Roop Lal challenged the election of Nachhattar Singh to the Punjab Legislative Assembly on the ground that the Election Commission’s re‑allocation of the party symbol ‘hand’ to the respondent violated the Election Symbols (Reservation & Allotment) Order, 1968 and the provisions of the Representation of th

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search