Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Representation of the People Act, 1951

342 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act — showing 1–200.

DIPAK CHANDRA RUHIDASversusCHANDAN KUMAR SARKAR

2003 INSC 35431 July 2003Dismissed

The appellant, Dipak Chandra Ruhidas, challenged the election of Chandan Kumar Sarkar to the Assam Legislative Assembly on the ground that Sarkar's nomination was improperly accepted despite not being a Scheduled Caste member. The Gauhati High Court dismissed the election petition under Section 86(1) of the Representat

SANJAY DUTTversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA TR. CBI, BOMBAY

2009 INSC 42531 March 2009Dismissed

The petitioner, a well‑known cine artist, was convicted by a Special Judge under Sections 3 and 7 read with Sections 25(1A) and 25(1B) of the Arms Act and sentenced to six years’ rigorous imprisonment. While his appeal against the conviction was pending before the Supreme Court, he sought bail and filed several crimina

SUBHASH DESAIversusSHARAD J. RAO AND ORS.

1994 INSC 13631 March 1994Dismissed

Subhash Desai, elected from Goregaon as a Shiv Sena candidate, was challenged by Sharad J. Rao of Janata Dal for alleged corrupt practices. The election petition alleged that Desai had appealed to voters on religious grounds, published a false newspaper report to vilify Rao, and incited communal hatred, violating Secti

DR. KASHINATH G. JALMI AND ANR. ETC. ETC.versusSPEAKER AND ORS.

1993 INSC 12831 March 1993Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned three writ petitions filed in the Bombay High Court challenging orders of the Acting Speaker of the Goa Legislative Assembly that purportedly reviewed and set aside earlier disqualification orders of members under the Tenth Schedule (anti‑defection law). The High Court dismissed the petitions at the

BASANAGOUDAversusDR. S. B. AMARKHED AND ORS.

1992 INSC 9831 March 1992Case Partly allowed

Basanagouda was elected to the Karnataka Legislative Assembly and was challenged by Dr. S. B. Amarkhed, the nearest unsuccessful candidate, who alleged booth‑capturing and rigging of votes. The High Court, relying on Order XI Rule 14 and Order XVI Rule 6 of the CPC, ordered the production of various election documents,

M. KARUNANIDHI ETC.versusH.V. HANDE & ORS. ETC.

1983 INSC 3031 March 1983Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined several election petitions filed by Dr. H.V. Hande challenging the election of M. Karunanidhi. The petitioners had deposited the required Rs.2,000 security for costs in the Reserve Bank of India on a pre‑receipted challan, and the petition included a photograph of a fancy banner but no copy o

JEEVAN CHANDRABHAN IDNANI & ANR.versusDIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, KONKAN BHAVAN & ORS.

2012 INSC 5631 January 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned the formation of a post‑poll "aghadi" (front) by councillors of the Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation after municipal elections. The petitioners argued that the second proviso to sub‑section (2) of Section 31A of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 allows the creation of an aghadi or

V.S. ACHUTHANANDANversusP. J. FRANCIS AND ANR.

2001 INSC 5731 January 2001Appeal(s) allowed

In the 1996 Kerala Legislative Assembly election for the Mararikulam constituency, P.J. Francis was declared elected, defeating V.S. Achuthanandan by 1,965 votes. Achuthanandan filed an election petition alleging corrupt practices, improper reception of void votes, and violations of the Constitution and the Representat

DESHRAJversusBODHRAJ

2007 INSC 121230 November 2007

In the 2003 Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly election for the SC‑reserved 35‑Gangath constituency, the respondent Bodh Raj was declared elected, claiming membership of the Scheduled Caste Lohar and supporting it with a caste certificate issued by an Executive Magistrate. The appellant Deshraj challenged the electi

HARIKRISHNA LALversusBABU LAL MARANDI

2003 INSC 58530 October 2003Dismissed

Harikrishna Lal and Babu Lal Marandi contested the 2001 Jharkhand Legislative Assembly election from Ramgarh. The respondent's nomination paper listed his name as "Babu Lal Marandi" while the electoral roll showed "Babu Marandi", omitting the middle name "Lal". No objection was raised at the scrutiny stage and the retu

REGU MAHESH @ REGU MAHESWAR RAOversusRAJENDRA PRATAP BHANJ DEV AND ANR.

2003 INSC 58830 October 2003Dismissed

The appellant Regu Mahesh filed an election petition challenging the election of Rajendra Pratap Bhanj Dev from the Saluru (ST) constituency on the ground that the respondent did not belong to a Scheduled Tribe. The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed the petition, holding that it lacked proper verification, did not co

SANTOSH YADAVversusNARENDER SINGH

2001 INSC 53330 October 2001Dismissed

In the 2000 Haryana Assembly election for the Ateli constituency, the appellant Santosh Yadav (INLD) lost to Narender Singh (INC) by a margin of 334 votes. Yadav challenged the result, alleging that the election was materially affected by the improper acceptance of the nomination of independent candidate Naresh Yadav,

RAM SHARAN YADAVversusTHAKUR MUNESHWAR NATH SINGH AND ORS.

1984 INSC 20430 October 1984Dismissed

Ram Sharan Yadav, a Communist Party candidate, was elected to the Bihar Legislative Assembly in 1977. The defeated candidate, Thakur Muneshwar Nath Singh, filed an election petition alleging that Yadav had engaged in corrupt practices of undue influence under Section 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951

BHAG MALversusCH. PARBHU RAM AND OTHERS

1984 INSC 20330 October 1984Dismissed

In the 1982 Haryana Legislative Assembly election, Bhagmal was declared elected by a margin of ten votes over Parbhuram. Parbhuram filed an election petition alleging improper counting and the influence of a Naib Tehsildar on the Returning Officer, leading to a recount of rejected ballot papers. The High Court ordered

INDRAJIT BARIJA & ORS. ETC.versusELECTION COMMLSSION OF INDIA & ORS.

1985 INSC 21030 September 1985Dismissed

The petitioners challenged the 1983 Assam Legislative Assembly election, alleging that the electoral rolls of 1979 were defective because they had not been revised as required by the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and allegedly contained non‑citizens. They filed writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitut

ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARYversusASHOK KUMAR AND ORS.

2000 INSC 42330 August 2000Appeal(s) allowed

During the 1999 Lok Sabha elections in Kerala, the Election Commission issued a notification under Rule 59A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 directing that ballot papers from all ballot boxes in a constituency be mixed before counting to prevent intimidation and victimisation. Two writ petitions were filed in the

JAVED AND ORS.versusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

2003 INSC 34230 July 2003Dismissed

The petitioners were disqualified from contesting or holding Panchayat offices under Sections 175(1)(q) and 177(1) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 because they had more than two living children. They challenged the provisions as arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 25 of the Constituti

LAKSHMI CHARAN SEN AND ORS ETC.versusA.K.M. HASSAN UZZAMAN AMO ORS. ETC.

1982 INSC 4330 March 1982Disposed off

The Calcutta High Court entertained a writ petition under Article 226 challenging the Chief Election Commissioner, the Chief Electoral Officer and the Election Commission of India for allegedly issuing vague and arbitrary directions for a de novo revision of West Bengal's electoral rolls and for proceeding with electio

S. HARCHARAN SINGHversusS. SAJJAN SINGH AND ORS.

1984 INSC 22029 November 1984Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant challenged the election of respondent No. 3 to the Punjab Legislative Assembly on the ground that the candidate had committed a corrupt practice under section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The allegation was that the Akal Takht, the supreme religious authority of the Sikhs, had spo

SURINDER SINGHversusHARDIAL SINGH AND ORS.

1984 INSC 20229 October 1984Appeal(s) allowed

In the 1980 Punjab Legislative Assembly election, Surinder Singh was elected but his victory was challenged on two grounds of corrupt practice under the Representation of the People Act, 1951: (1) alleged "undue influence" for disturbing an Akali Party meeting with firearms, and (2) alleged "bribery" for promising to h

RAM BHUALversusAMBIKA SINGH

2005 INSC 45529 September 2005Dismissed

In the 2002 Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly election, Ram Bhual was declared elected. Defeated candidate Ambika Singh filed an election petition under Section 100(1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, alleging that the Returning Officer had wrongly rejected the nomination of independent candidate Sita

SRI B. RAJGOPALA RAO & ANR.versusSRI APPAYYA DORA HANUMANTHU & ORS.

1989 INSC 29829 September 1989Dismissed

The appeals challenged Andhra Pradesh High Court judgments that had upheld the election of a Member of Parliament on the ground that advertisements and speeches by the Chief Minister, published through the Government's Publicity Department, offering subsidised rice and clothing to low‑income groups constituted a corrup

ASHRAF KOKKURversusK.V. ABDUL KHADER ETC.

2014 INSC 57529 August 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, K.V. Abdul Khader, was Chairperson of the Kerala State Wakf Board and was elected to the Kerala Legislative Assembly. The appellant, Ashraf Kokkurr, filed an election petition alleging that the respondent was disqualified under Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution because he held an office of profit. T

MOHAMMAD SADIQUEversusDARBARA SINGH GURU

2016 INSC 35529 April 2016Appeal(s) allowed

In the 2012 Punjab Legislative Assembly election, Mohammad Sadique was elected from the Bhadaur constituency, which is reserved for Scheduled Castes (SC). The election petitioner, Darbara Singh Guru, challenged Sadique's election on the ground that Sadique, being born to Muslim parents, could not claim SC status and th

RAM CHAND BHATIAversusHARDYAL

1986 INSC 1029 January 1986Appeal(s) allowed

In the 1982 Himachal Pradesh Assembly election, Ram Chand Bhatia (BJP) was elected over Hardyal (Congress). Hardyal filed an election petition alleging that a poster (Annexure PA) printed by Janata Party candidate Kanshi Ram contained false statements about his personal character and was distributed with Bhatia’s conse

SRI MAIREMBAM PRITHVIRAJ @ PR!THVIRAJ SINGH .versusSHRI PUKHREM SHARATCHANDRA SINGH

2016 INSC 100028 October 2016Dismissed

The appellant, elected as MLA from Moirang constituency, was challenged by the respondent on the ground that the appellant had falsely declared an MBA degree in Form 26, constituting a false declaration of educational qualification. The High Court held the false declaration to be a substantial defect and declared the a

SPECIAL REFERENCE NO. I OF 2002versus.

2002 INSC 44528 October 2002Reference answered

The President referred three questions to the Supreme Court concerning the interplay of Article 174(1) (which mandates that six months shall not intervene between the last sitting of a state legislature and its next session) and Article 324 (which vests the Election Commission with the superintendence, direction and co

DR. P. NALLA THAMPY THERA.versusB.L. SHANKER & OTHERS

1983 INSC 16528 October 1983Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined an election petition that had been dismissed for the petitioner's failure to appear and produce evidence, despite statutory mandates for disposal within six months. The petitioner sought to delete a specific prayer, and the High Court allowed the deletion and later permitted withdrawal of a r

ARUN KUMAR BOSEversusMOHD. FURKAN ANSARI & OTHERS

1983 INSC 13228 September 1983Dismissed

In the 1980 Bihar Legislative Assembly election, the appellant Arun Kumar Bose was declared elected by a margin of 24 votes over respondent No.1, Mohd. Furkan Ansari. The respondent filed an election petition under s.81 of the Representation of the People Act, alleging that 74 ballot papers were wrongly rejected becaus

SHYAMDEO PRASAD SINGHversusNAWAL KISHORE YADAV

2000 INSC 41528 August 2000Dismissed

In April 1996 a biennial election was held for the Patna Teachers Constituency of the Bihar Legislative Council and Nawal Kishore Yadav was declared elected. The petitioner filed an election petition alleging that a large number of persons who were not qualified under the 1950 Act had been improperly enrolled in the el

HARMOHINDER SINGH PRADHANversusRANJEET SINGH TALWANDI AND ORS.

2005 INSC 23528 April 2005Dismissed

The appellant challenged the election of Ranjit Singh Talwandi, alleging that religious leaders had appealed to voters to support him, which was claimed to be a corrupt practice under Section 123(3) of the Representation of People Act, 1951. The Supreme Court examined whether such an appeal, made by religious leaders,

JAYANTBHAI MANUBHAI PATEL AND OTHERSversusARUN SUBODHBHAI MEHTA AND OTHERS

1989 INSC 9928 March 1989Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned the election of a Mayor and Deputy Mayor of the Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation. The incumbent Mayor and Deputy Mayor issued a notice for a meeting on 1 June 1988, but the Mayor later cancelled the notice and directed a postponement, after which a minority of councillors met and elected new officers.

JAMAL UDDIN AHMADversusABU SALEH NAJMUDDIN AND ANR.

2003 INSC 13228 February 2003Dismissed

The petitioners challenged the election of the respondent to the Assam Legislative Assembly, alleging that the election petition was invalidly presented to the Stamp Reporter of the Gauhati High Court. The respondents argued that the presentation complied with Chapter VIII‑A of the Gauhati High Court Rules and was ther

ASHISH SHELAR & ORS.versusTHE MAHARASHTRA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY & ANR.

2022 INSC 11628 January 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioners, twelve BJP MLAs, were suspended for one year by a resolution of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly after a heated monsoon session. They challenged the resolution under Articles 14, 21 and 190(4) of the Constitution, arguing that the suspension exceeded the period allowed by Rule 53 of the Assembly Ru

SOBHA HYMAVATHI DEVIversusSETTI GANGADHARA SWAMY AND ORS.

2005 INSC 5128 January 2005Dismissed

The Supreme Court upheld the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision that Sobha Hyma Vathi Devi, elected from a Scheduled Tribe (ST) reserved assembly constituency, was ineligible because she belonged to the forward Patnaik Sistu Karnam caste, not the Bhagatha ST community. The Court affirmed that the marriage of a non‑tr

SATRUCHARLA VIJAYA RAMA RAJUversusNIMMAKA JAYA RAJU AND ORS.

2005 INSC 53227 October 2005Dismissed

The appellant, elected from the Naguru (ST) constituency in 1999, was challenged under Section 80 of the Representation of the People Act on the ground that he did not belong to the "Konda Dora" Scheduled Tribe but was a Kshatriya. The appellant argued that an earlier election petition (E.P. 13 of 1983) which had dismi

SARDAR HARCHARAN SINGH BRARversusSUKH DARSHAN SINGH AND ORS.

2004 INSC 62327 October 2004Appeal(s) allowed

In the 2002 Punjab Assembly election, Sukh Darshan Singh was declared elected over Sardar Harcharan Singh Brar by a narrow margin. Brar filed an election petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 alleging that a rival's nomination was improperly accepted and that Singh had committed the corrupt practice

MAHENDRA PALversusRAM DASS MALANGER AND ORS.

1999 INSC 49427 October 1999Appeal(s) allowed

Mahendra Pal, a candidate of the Indian National Congress, challenged the election of R.D. Malanger, a Bharatiya Janata Party candidate, to the Himachal Pradesh Vidhan Sabha from the Kutlehar constituency. The petition alleged that 35,310 ballot papers were distributed but 35,318 were counted, resulting in eight excess

SARNAM SINGHversusSMT. PUSHPA DEVI & ORS.

1987 INSC 29627 October 1987Dismissed

In the 1985 Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly election for constituency No. 41, Smt. Pushpa Devi was declared elected with 23,006 votes, defeating the runner‑up by a margin of 2,271 votes. A candidate (Respondent No. 8), a college teacher, secured 3,606 votes, exceeding that margin. An elector, Sarnam Singh, filed an

PEOPLE'S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2013 INSC 65527 September 2013Disposed off

The Supreme Court entertained a writ petition filed by People's Union for Civil Liberties and others challenging Rules 41(2), 41(3) and 49‑0 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, which required a presiding officer to record a remark and obtain the voter’s signature/thumb impression when the voter chose not to cast a

S. SIVASWAMLversusV. MALAIKANNAN AND OTHERS

1983 INSC 12827 September 1983Dismissed

In the 1980 Tamil Nadu Assembly election for the Ilayangudi constituency, the appellant was declared winner by a margin of 56 votes. The first respondent filed an election petition alleging that the Returning Officer had wrongly rejected ballot papers where the voter's mark was partially in the candidate's column and p

MANOJ NARULAversusUNION OF INDIA

2014 INSC 56827 August 2014Disposed off

The petition challenged the appointment of several Union Ministers on the ground that they had criminal antecedents or were facing charges for serious offences, seeking a declaration that such appointments were unconstitutional and requesting the Court to frame guidelines for ministerial appointments. The Court examine

P.A. MOHAMMED RIYASversusM.K. RAGHAVAN & ORS.

2012 INSC 19227 April 2012Dismissed

The appellant, P.A. Mohammed Riyas, contested the 2009 Lok Sabha election from Kozhikode and filed an election petition alleging that the respondent, M.K. Raghavan, committed corrupt practice by publishing false statements, invoking Sections 81, 100, 101 and 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The petiti

LOK PRAHARIversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS

2023 INSC 30227 March 2023Dismissed

Lok Prahari, a society, challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 39-AA of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 and the proviso to Section 33 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, alleging violations of Article 80(4), Article 14 of the Constitution and Section 123(2) of the Act. The petitioner argued that

ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAYversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2023 INSC 17427 February 2023Dismissed

Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking a court order directing the Home Ministry to set up a Renaming Commission, the Archaeological Survey of India to research original names, and governments to update records of ancient religious sites renamed during foreign invasions, invoking rights t

LALSAI KHUNTEversusNIRMAL SINHA AND ORS.

2007 INSC 22027 February 2007Dismissed

Lal Saij Khunte was elected to the Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly but his election was challenged on the ground that he had been convicted under IPC sections 420, 34 and 468 and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment, which under Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 disqualifies a person

TADUR BALA GOUDversusM. NARAYAN REDDY & ORS.

1989 INSC 7227 February 1989Appeal(s) allowed

In the 1984 Lok Sabha election from Nizamabad, T. B. Goud was declared elected. M. Narayan Reddy filed an election petition under Sections 80 and 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, alleging counting irregularities, impersonation and corrupt practices, and specifically contended that the Additional Assist

RAJENDRA SINGH & ORS. ETCversusSMT. USHA RANI & ORS. ETC.

1984 INSC 4727 February 1984Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants challenged the election petitions filed against them on the ground that the copies served on them were not attested as true and exact copies as required by Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and therefore the petitions should be dismissed in limine under Section 86. The High Cou

ANWARI BASAWARAJ PATIL AND ORS.versusSIDDARAMAIAH AND ORS.

1993 INSC 2527 January 1993Dismissed

The first respondent, a defeated candidate, filed an election petition challenging the election of the appellant. The appellant filed a recrimination notice under Section 97 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, but did so beyond the 14‑day period prescribed, and sought condonation of the delay under Section 5

NAVJOT SINGH SIDHUversusOM PARKASH SONI & ORS.

2016 INSC 99026 October 2016Case Partly allowed

The 2009 Lok Sabha election for Amritsar was challenged in an election petition alleging three categories of corrupt practice: excess election expenditure on newspaper advertisements, excessive spending on public meetings, and assistance from a gazetted officer, along with a grievance about the Returning Officer's hand

JEET MOHINDER SINGHversusHARMINDER SINGH JASSI

1999 INSC 49026 October 1999Dismissed

The Supreme Court dismissed Civil Appeal No.154 of 1999 filed by Jeet Mohinder Singh challenging the election of Harminder Singh Jassi. The Court held that the respondent's nomination paper was validly accepted because the required copy of the electoral roll was produced before scrutiny, and the returning officer was n

KRISHNA MOHINIversusMOHINDER NATH SOFAT

1999 INSC 49126 October 1999Dismissed

In the Solan constituency election, the petitioner Mohinder Nath Sofat challenged the election of Krishna Mohini on two grounds: the alleged improper rejection of the nomination papers of Pritam Chand and Mohan Singh, who were alternate candidates of unrecognised parties, and the alleged illegal acceptance of Jagdish C

SHRADHA DEVIversusKRISHNA CHANDRA PANT & OTHERS

1982 INSC 7926 October 1982Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, an unsuccessful candidate in a Rajya Sabha election conducted by single transferable vote, filed an election petition under section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 seeking scrutiny and recount on the ground that several valid votes had been wrongly rejected and that the Returning Officer

K. MADAN MOHAN RAOversusBHEEMRAO BASWANTHRAO PATIL & ORS.

2022 INSC 102526 September 2022Appeal(s) allowed

K. Madan Mohan Rao filed an election petition (No.34/2019) in the Telangana High Court and moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC seeking exemption from filing the impugned order. After a prolonged hearing, the High Court pronounced an order on 15 June 2022 allowing the application and rejecting the el

PATEL AHMED MOHAMMADversusBALWANT SINGH RAJPUT & ORS.

2018 INSC 88726 September 2018Leave Granted & Disposed off

Patel Ahmed Mohammad, a Rajya Sabha member, was challenged by Balwant Singh Rajput in an election petition alleging corrupt practices and vote irregularities. The appellant filed three applications for dismissal of the petition: (i) on the basis that office objections under Gujarat High Court Rules were not removed (Ap

P.T RAJANversusT.P.M. SAHIR AND ORS.

2003 INSC 51426 September 2003Dismissed

In the 2001 Kozhikode Assembly election, the appellant, election agent of the defeated candidate, alleged that after the 3 p.m. deadline for filing nominations, 19,045 names were deleted and 6,828 added to the electoral roll, rendering the election void. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the appellant

ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAYversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

2022 INSC 87526 August 2022Directions issued

The petitioners challenged pre‑election promises of free goods (“freebies”) made by political parties, arguing that such promises strain state finances and violate the spirit of free and fair elections. They sought judicial intervention, contending that the promises amount to corrupt practices under Section 123 of the

IQBAL SINGHversusAVTAR SINGH AND ORS.

1994 INSC 28526 July 1994Dismissed

The appellant, Iqbal Singh, contested the 1992 Faridkot Assembly election and filed an election petition under Section 80 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, alleging that the returned candidate and a party president conspired to induce another candidate to withdraw in exchange for his appointment as General

ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMSversusELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

2024 INSC 34126 April 2024Disposed off

The Association for Democratic Reforms challenged the use of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) with VVPAT, seeking a return to paper ballots, physical hand‑over of VVPAT slips to voters, and 100% VVPAT counting, alleging possible manipulation. The Supreme Court examined the technical architecture of EVMs, the safeguard

K. VENKATACHALAMversusA. SWAMICKAN AND ANR.

1999 INSC 20326 April 1999Dismissed

In the 1984 Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly election, K. Venkatachalam was declared elected despite not being an elector in the Lalgudi constituency, having impersonated another person of the same name. The defeated candidate, A. Swamickan, filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a declaration that Venkatachala

R. PUTHUNAINAR ALIHITHAN ETC.versusP.H. PANDIAN AND ORS.

1996 INSC 44726 March 1996Dismissed

In the 1991 Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly election for the Chennaimahadevi constituency, the returned candidate (appellant) filed an election expense return showing Rs 36,350, admitting use of one vehicle (TN‑72‑1909) with Rs 15,875 expense but also acknowledging a second vehicle (TN‑555) whose expense was not disclo

UMESH CHALLIYILversusK.P. RAJENDRAN

2008 INSC 25826 February 2008Case Allowed

Umesh Challiyil filed an election petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 alleging corrupt practices by the elected candidate K.P. Rajendran. The Kerala High Court dismissed the petition on preliminary objections, holding that the verification in the petition and the affirmation in the supporting affi

JYOTI BASU & OTHERS.versusDEBI GHOSAL & OTHERS.

1982 INSC 2626 February 1982Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from an election petition filed by Debi Ghosal challenging the Lok Sabha election of Mohd Ismail from the 19‑Barrackpore constituency. The petition impleaded the Chief Minister of West Bengal, Jyoti Basu, and two other state ministers, alleging they colluded with the returned candidate to commit corrupt

PASHUPATI NATH SUKUL & OTHERS.versusNEM CHANDRA JAIN & OTHERS.

1983 INSC 18725 November 1983Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined two issues arising from a Rajya Sabha election in Uttar Pradesh: whether the Secretary of the State Legislative Assembly could be appointed as Returning Officer under Section 21 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and whether an elected Assembly member who had not yet taken the oat

PUBLIC INTEREST FOUNDATION & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2018 INSC 86225 September 2018Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether it could compel Parliament to enact a law disqualifying candidates against whom serious criminal charges have been framed and whether it could direct the Election Commission to deny such candidates the use of a party's reserved symbol. The Court held that disqualification is a matter

AZHAR HUSSAINversusRAJIV GANDHI

1986 INSC 9425 April 1986Dismissed

The respondent was elected to the Lok Sabha from Amethi in the 1984 general election. An elector filed an election petition alleging several corrupt practices, but the petition failed to disclose material facts and particulars required by Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The High Court dismisse

BHAGWATI PRASAD DIXIT 'GHOREWALA'versusRAJEEV GANDHI

1986 INSC 9525 April 1986Dismissed

Bhagwati Prasad Dixit challenged the election of Rajiv Gandhi to the Lok Sabha on three grounds: alleged loss of Indian citizenship due to marriage and property in Italy, holding an office of profit by receiving a parliamentary salary, and the ineligibility of the Chief Election Commissioner. The High Court dismissed t

ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIAversusSTATE OF HARYANA

1984 INSC 9125 April 1984Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court heard a special leave appeal (Civil Appeal No. 2182 of 1984) filed by the Election Commission of India against an ex‑parte order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court that stayed the election programme for a by‑election in the Taoru Assembly constituency. The High Court had intervened despite the imminen

KUNGA NIMA LEPCHA & ORS.versusSTATE OF SIKKIM & ORS.

2010 INSC 16625 March 2010Dismissed

Four members of a political party filed a public‑interest writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution alleging that the Chief Minister of Sikkim had amassed assets disproportionate to his known income and misappropriated public funds. They sought a mandamus directing the Central Bureau of Investigation to launch

SITARAM JIVYABHAI GAVALIversusRAMJIBHAI PETIYABHAI MAHALA & ORS.

1987 INSC 8025 March 1987Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a temporary government investigator, resigned by tendering a one‑month notice pay as required by Condition 6 of his appointment and handed over all official records on 24 Nov 1984, two days before filing his nomination for the Lok Sabha election. The respondent challenged his election, alleging that he w

TEJ BAHADURversusSHRI NARENDRA MODI

2020 INSC 65524 November 2020Dismissed

Tej Bahadur, a former Border Security Force officer dismissed in 2017, filed an election petition challenging Narendra Modi's election to the Lok Sabha from Varanasi, alleging his own nomination was wrongly rejected and the election was vitiated. He had filed two nomination papers in April 2019 but failed to attach the

KANHIYALAL OMARversusR.K. TRIVEDI & ORS.

1985 INSC 20424 September 1985Dismissed

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 32 challenging the constitutional validity of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, arguing that the Order was legislative in nature and could not be issued by the Election Commission because it lacked statutory authority. The Court examined whe

CONSUMER EDUCATION & RESEARCH SOCIETYversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2009 INSC 106524 August 2009Dismissed

The Consumer Education & Research Society filed writ petitions under Article 32 challenging the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Amendment Act, 2006, which retrospectively added 55 offices of profit to the exempted list under the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959. The petitioners argued t

BHIM RAO BASWANTH RAO PATILversusK. MADAN MOHAN RAO AND ORS.

2023 INSC 64124 July 2023Dismissed

Bhima Rao Baswanth Rao Patil, a successful Lok Sabha candidate, was challenged by K. Madan Mohan Rao through an election petition under Sections 81 and 84 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, alleging false information, non‑disclosure of pending criminal cases and convictions, and non‑compliance with Election

MULAYAM SINGH YADAVversusDHARAMPAL YADAV AND ORS.

2001 INSC 30324 July 2001Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined an election petition filed after the 1998 parliamentary election in Sambhal, where Mulayam Singh Yadav was declared elected and Dharampal Yadav challenged the result alleging large‑scale booth capturing, arson and violence. The petition relied on a video cassette, mentioned and verified in Sc

S.S. DHANOAversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1991 INSC 16224 July 1991Dismissed

The petitioners, appointed as Election Commissioners in October 1989, challenged the President’s January 1990 notifications that rescinded their appointments and abolished the two posts. They argued that the abolition violated the tenure provisions in the service rules, infringed the independence of the Election Commis

KULDEEP SINGH PATHANIAversusBIKRAM SINGH JARYAL

2017 INSC 7324 January 2017Appeal(s) allowed

Kuldeep Singh Pathania, who lost a 2012 Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly election, filed an election petition under Section 100(1)(d)(iii) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 alleging irregularities in voting and postal ballots. The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed the petition on preliminary ground

KALYAN SINGH CHOUHANversusC.P. JOSHI

2011 INSC 6624 January 2011Dismissed

The appellant Kalyan Singh Chouhan, declared elected by a margin of one vote in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly election, challenged the High Court's order rejecting his application to summon all ten tendered votes, arguing that the entire set should be examined to prevent miscarriage of justice. The respondent C.P.

TEK CHANDversusDILE RAM

2001 INSC 4424 January 2001Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent challenged the election of the appellant, Tek Chand, alleging that the independent candidate Nikka Ram's nomination was improperly accepted because he was allegedly holding an office of profit and was a BJP/RSS activist whose votes allegedly cut into the respondent's tally, thereby materially affecting t

JANATA DAL (SAMAJWADI)versusTHE ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA

1995 INSC 77423 November 1995Dismissed

Janata Dal (Samajwadi) was recognised as a national party on 16 April 1991. After the Lok Sabha and several state assembly elections held between April and June 1991, the Election Commission found that the party no longer satisfied the criteria in paragraph 6(2) of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order

BIHARILAL DOBRAYversusROSHAN LAL DOBRAY

1983 INSC 18323 November 1983Appeal(s) allowed

In the 1980 Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly election, the nomination of Roshanlal Dobray, an Assistant Teacher in a basic primary school, was rejected on the ground that he held an office of profit under the State Government, disqualifying him under Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution. The High Court held that the

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

BIDESH SINGHversusMADHU SINGH AND ORS.

2003 INSC 50923 September 2003Appeal(s) allowed

Bidesh Singh filed an election petition challenging the election of Maohu Singh on the ground that 258 ballot papers were illegally rejected in Booth No. 35 and sought their inspection and scrutiny. The respondent filed an application under Sections 81, 83 and 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and Rule 9

T.H. MUSTHAFFAversusM.P. VARGHESE AND ORS.

1999 INSC 44023 September 1999Dismissed

In the Kerala Legislative Assembly election for Kunnathunadu, respondent No.1 was declared elected by a margin of 60 votes. The appellant filed an election petition alleging double voting, impersonation, and that about 300 votes were cast using a wrong instrument for marking ballot papers, seeking a recount. The High C

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

U.S. SASIDHARANversusK. KARUNAKARAN & ANR

1989 INSC 25523 August 1989Dismissed

The appellant, a voter in the Mala constituency of Kerala, filed an election petition challenging the election of the sitting Chief Minister on grounds of several alleged corrupt practices, including a notice, a photograph, and a video cassette purportedly used for election propaganda. The petition annexed these docume

THAMMANNAversusK. VEERA REDDY & ORS.

1980 INSC 13323 July 1980Dismissed

In the 1978 Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly election, K. Veera Reddy was elected. V. Krishna Reddy filed an election petition alleging Veera Reddy's disqualification under Section 9A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. All candidates, including Thammanna (original respondent No.5), were joined as respond

ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIAversusDR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY AND ANR.

1996 INSC 56923 April 1996Disposed off

The Election Commission of India appealed against a Madras High Court decision that had prohibited Chief Election Commissioner T.N. Seshan from expressing the Commission’s opinion on a disqualification petition against Chief Minister J. Jayalalitha, on grounds of alleged bias. The Supreme Court examined whether the Chi

PRABHUDEV MALLIKARJUNAIAHversusRAMACHANDRA VEERAPPA AND ANR.

1996 INSC 57023 April 1996Dismissed

The appellant, Prabhudev Mallikarjunaiah, filed a nomination as a Scheduled Caste (Beda Jangamma) candidate for the Bidar‑1 (SC) Lok Sabha seat in 1991. The Returning Officer rejected his nomination, holding that he belonged to the Veerashiva Lingayath community, not the Beda Jangamma caste listed in Presidential Notif

SH. HARCHARAN SINGH JOSHversusSH. HARI KISHAN

1996 INSC 57223 April 1996Dismissed

The appellant, an unsuccessful candidate in the 1993 Delhi Assembly election, filed an election petition alleging corrupt practices under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition but held that the respondent was not supplied with the requisite true copy of t

PEOPLE'S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES AND ANOTHERversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

2009 INSC 23823 February 2009Matter referred to larger bench

The petitioners sought to strike down Rules 41(2) and 49‑0 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 and to direct the Election Commission to provide for negative voting and its secrecy in ballot papers and EVMs. The Court examined the constitutional status of the right to vote, the concept of negative voting, and the sco

R. PALANIMUTHUversusRETURNING OFFICER

1984 INSC 4623 February 1984Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant challenged the election of the second respondent from a Scheduled Tribes reserved assembly constituency, alleging that the respondent falsely claimed to belong to the Konda Reddy Scheduled Tribe and had obtained a fraudulent community certificate. The Returning Officer had accepted the nomination based on

DHEERAJ MORversusHON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

2018 INSC 4623 January 2018

The petitioners challenged the interpretation of Article 233 of the Constitution concerning the eligibility criteria for appointment of District Judges by direct recruitment. They argued that a candidate who has completed seven years of practice as an advocate should remain eligible even if he/she is in Union or State

NAVJOT SINGH SIDHUversusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.

2007 INSC 6823 January 2007Case Allowed

Navjot Singh Sidhu, a sitting Member of Parliament, was convicted by the Punjab High Court under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment. He resigned from the Lok Sabha and sought a fresh mandate, filing an application to suspend the order of conviction, arguing that under Section 8(

RAM PHAL KUNDUversusKAMAL SHARMA

2004 INSC 5523 January 2004Appeal(s) allowed

In the 2000 Haryana Legislative Assembly election, two candidates, Kamal Sharma and Bachan Singh, both claimed to be the official Congress candidate for the Safidon constituency. Both filed Form B with the Returning Officer; Bachan Singh’s Form B, submitted later, rescinded the earlier notice in favour of Kamal and was

M.V. RAJASHEKARAN AND ORS.versusVATAL NAGARAJ AND ORS.

2002 INSC 4223 January 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The Karnataka Government appointed Vatal Nagaraj as Chairman of a One Man Commission to study the problems of Kannadigas in border areas and accorded the post cabinet rank with a budgetary allocation of Rs.5 lakh for expenses. When Nagaraj filed his nomination for the Karnataka Legislative Council, the Returning Office

LAXMI NARAYAN NAYAKversusRAMRATAN CHATURVEDI AND ORS.

1989 INSC 39722 December 1989Dismissed

In the 1985 Madhya Pradesh Vidhan Sabha election for the Niwadi constituency, respondent No.1 Ramratan Chaturvedi was declared elected. The appellant, Lakshmi Narayan Nayak, filed an election petition alleging corrupt practices under Sections 123(2), (3) and (3A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, specifica

GOVIND SINGHversusHARCHAND KAUR

2010 INSC 79822 November 2010Appeal(s) allowed

Govind Singh, a former Social Security Minister, resigned on 12 January 2002 and filed his nomination as an independent candidate on 23 January 2002. He was elected MLA from the Sherpur (SC) constituency on 13 February 2002. The defeated candidate, Harchand Kaur, filed an election petition alleging that Singh had indul

MAHENDER PRATAPversusKRISHAN PAL AND ORS.

2002 INSC 49222 November 2002Dismissed

Mahender Pratap, who lost a Legislative Assembly election by 161 votes, filed an election petition seeking a recount of votes on the ground of alleged irregularities in electronic voting machine counting and non‑compliance with Conduct of Election Rules 56A and 63. He claimed that his application for recount was filed

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

RAGHBIR SINGHversusSURJIT SINGH AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

1994 INSC 33622 August 1994Dismissed

Raghbir Singh, convicted under IPC sections 326 and 149 and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment, was released in November 1988 and subsequently contested the Punjab Vidhan Sabha election in February 1992. The respondent filed an election petition alleging that Singh was disqualified under sub‑section 3 of S

SMT. LATA DEVI (MALI)versusHARU RAJWAR

1989 INSC 25122 August 1989Appeal(s) allowed

In the 1985 Bihar Legislative Assembly election, Lata Devi (Mali) was declared elected from Chandan Kyari (SC) constituency. The defeated candidate, Haru Rajwar, filed an election petition alleging that the Returning Officer changed his allotted symbol from "bow and arrow" to "ladder" less than twenty days before polli

MD. ALAUDDIN KHANversusKARAM THAMARJIT SINGH

2010 INSC 41822 July 2010Matter referred to larger bench

The election for the 9th Manipur Legislative Assembly was won by MD Alauddin Khan by a margin of two votes over Karam Thamarjit Singh, who filed an election petition under Section 100(1)(d)(iii) alleging impersonation of dead voters in certain polling stations and seeking a recount and declaration of the election as vo

V.S. ACHUTHANANDHANversusP.J. FRANCIS AND ANR.

1999 INSC 12322 March 1999Appeal(s) allowed

V.S. Achuthanandan, a defeated CPI(M) candidate, filed an election petition against the winning candidate P.J. Francis alleging corrupt practices and illegalities in ballot counting. The Kerala High Court dismissed the petition under Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act read with Order 7 Rule 11 of the CP

MOHD. ASLAMversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 42422 March 1996Dismissed

Mohd. Aslam filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking reconsideration of the Supreme Court's judgment in Manohar Joshi v. Nitin Bhaurao Patil, alleging it was incorrect. The Court held that Article 32 cannot be invoked to challenge the correctness of a decision on its merits or to obtain its reconsideration. It fu

MOHD. TAHIR HUSSAINversusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI

2025 INSC 10022 January 2025

Mohd. Tahir Hussain, an under‑trial accused in multiple FIRs including rioting and the murder of an IB official, has been in custody since March 2020 and sought interim bail to contest and campaign in the 2025 Delhi Assembly elections. The Delhi High Court allowed only a custodial parole for filing his nomination, prom

SIMHADRI SATYA NARAYANA RAOversusM. BUDDA PRASAD AND ORS.

1990 INSC 40021 December 1990Dismissed

The appellant was declared elected to the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly on 26 November 1989. An election petition challenging his election was filed on 15 January 1990, after the 45‑day limitation under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 had expired on 10 January because the High Court was o

M. CHINNASAMYversusK.C. PALANISAMY AND ORS.

2003 INSC 66121 November 2003Appeal(s) allowed

In the 1999 Karur parliamentary election the returned candidate won by 2,847 votes. The defeated candidate filed an election petition alleging irregularities in the counting of about 15,000 rejected votes across five categories, but the petition disclosed only vague, general allegations without the required particulars

B.R. KAPURversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR.

2001 INSC 45321 September 2001Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether J. Jayalalithaa, convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment, could be appointed Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu after her party won a majority. The Court held that a person convicted and sentenced to imprisonment of two years or m

CHANDRA KISHORE JHAversusMAHAVIR PRASAD AND ORS.

1999 INSC 42721 September 1999Appeal(s) allowed

In the Bihar Legislative Assembly election, Chandra Kishore Jha filed an election petition challenging Mahavir Prasad's election. The petition was handed to the Bench Clerk on 16 May 1995, the last day of the 45‑day limitation period, but the designated election judge and the bench hearing civil matters were unavailabl

SUMAN DEVIversusMANISHA DEVI AND ORS.

2018 INSC 73021 August 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was declared elected as Ward Councilor on 28 January 2016. The first respondent filed an election petition under Section 176 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act on 10 February 2016, withdrew it on 1 March 2016 and was given liberty to file a fresh petition, which she did on 2 March 2016—beyond the 30‑day pe

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

H.D. REVANNAversusG. PUTTASWAMY AND ORS.

1999 INSC 1921 January 1999Dismissed

The appellant G. Puttaswamy was declared elected after a recount ordered by the Returning Officer, which the respondent H.D. Revanna challenged, alleging that the recount violated Rule 63 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 and that the appellant committed corrupt practices under Sections 100 and 123 of the Represen

QUAMARUL ISLAMversusS.K. KANTA AND ORS.

1994 INSC 2021 January 1994

The returned candidate Quamarul Islam contested the 1989 Karnataka Assembly election and was challenged by his rival S.K. Kanta on alleged corrupt practices under Sections 123(2), (3), (3A) and (4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, including religious appeals and false statements. The High Court set aside

ANIL VASUDEV SALGAONKARversusNARESH KUSHALI SHIGAONKAR

2009 INSC 105720 August 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a returned candidate, challenged the High Court's order that upheld an election petition filed by the respondent alleging corrupt practices. The petition claimed the appellant had constructed bore wells and provided ambulances after the election notification, allegedly exceeding the permissible election

SHRIKANTversusVASANTRAO AND ORS.

2006 INSC 3720 January 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Shrikant, was elected to the Maharashtra Legislative Council but his election was challenged on the ground that he held subsisting government contracts, which under Section 9A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, would disqualify him. The contracts involved work for the State Government, one of

GADAKH YASHWANTRAO KANKARRAOversusE.V. ALIAS BALASAHEB VIKHE PATIL AND ORS.

1993 INSC 37319 November 1993Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined an election petition challenging the Lok Sabha election of Gadakh Yashwantrao Kankarrao from Ahmednagar on the ground that he had committed a corrupt practice under Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The petition alleged that Gadakh and the then Chief Minister Shara

DASANGLU PULversusLUPALUM KRI

2023 INSC 93019 October 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a third wife of a deceased MLA from the Mishmi tribe, filed a nomination for a 2019 assembly election and marked ‘not applicable’ in Form‑26 for the spouse‑property column. The respondent challenged the nomination, alleging non‑disclosure of the deceased husband’s assets, which he claimed constituted a s

YENDAPALLI SRINIVASULU REDDYversusVEMIREDDY PATTABHIRAMI REDDY & ORS.

2022 INSC 112019 October 2022Dismissed

The appellant, a returned candidate, challenged an election petition filed by the respondent that alleged improper acceptance of his nomination and mishandling of votes. The respondent later sought to amend the petition to include allegations that the appellant had failed to disclose a pending criminal case in his Form

RAVINDER SINGHversusJANMEJA SINGH AND ORS.

2000 INSC 45219 September 2000Dismissed

Ravinder Singh, who lost the 1997 Punjab Legislative Assembly election to Janmeja Singh, filed an election petition alleging two corrupt practices: bribery under Section 123(1)(A)(b) and false statements under Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The High Court dismissed the petition at the thr

SENTHIBALAJI VversusA.P. GEETHA AND ORS

2023 INSC 57119 May 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a duly elected MLA, challenged an election petition filed by the first respondent that alleged improper acceptance of his nomination papers and corrupt practices. The petition relied on representations to the Returning Officer and alleged misuse of government vehicles and suppression of Election Commissi

G.S. IQBALversusK.M. KHADAR & ORS.

2009 INSC 36819 March 2009Dismissed

The petitioner, G.S. Iqbal, challenged the election of K.M. Khader (the returned candidate) to the Lok Sabha on the grounds that the returned candidate was a member of two political parties at the time of filing his nomination, thereby violating Section 100(1)(d)(i) and (iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 195

V.NARAYANASWAMYversusC.P. THIRUNAVUKKARASU

2000 INSC 2419 January 2000Dismissed

The appellant, a defeated candidate, filed an election petition challenging the Rajya Sabha election of the respondent on alleged corrupt practices, including bribery, undue influence, and the appointment of party‑affiliated persons to state corporations. The petition was found to lack material facts, material particul

PRADEEP KUMAR SONTHALIAversusDHIRAJ PRASAD SAHU @ DHIRAJ SAHU & ANR.

2020 INSC 71018 December 2020Disposed off

In the biennial Rajya Sabha election from Jharkhand, MLA Amit Kumar Mahto cast his vote at 9:15 a.m. on 23 March 2018, but was convicted later that afternoon. The petitioner, Pradeep Kumar Sonthalia, challenged the validity of that vote, arguing that the conviction rendered Mahto disqualified under Article 191(1)(e) of

J. CHANDRASEKHARA RAOversusV. JAGAPATHI RAO AND NINE OTHERS

1992 INSC 35318 December 1992Dismissed

J. Chandrasekhara Rao challenged the election of V. Jagapathi Rao, who won by 427 votes, on the ground that the nomination of a second candidate, who was under 25 and thus ineligible, had been improperly accepted. The petitioner argued that the 9,568 votes obtained by the ineligible candidate (more than 22 times the ma

ANVAR P.V.versusP.K. BASHEER AND ORS.

2014 INSC 64518 September 2014Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined an election petition challenging the election of P.K. Basheer on the ground that a leaflet (Exhibit‑P1) and various audio‑visual recordings were published to malign the petitioner, Anvar P.V., constituting a corrupt practice under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The Court held tha

RAM SUKHversusDINESH AGGARWAL

2009 INSC 116018 September 2009Dismissed

Ram Sukh, a losing candidate in the 2007 Uttarakhand Legislative Assembly election, filed an election petition challenging the election of Dinesh Aggarwal on grounds of alleged corrupt practices and procedural lapses by the Returning Officer. The High Court dismissed the petition at the preliminary stage, holding that

DESIYA MURPOKKU DRAVIDA KAZHAGAM & ANR.versusTHE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA

2012 INSC 17618 April 2012Dismissed

The petitioners, including Desiya Murpokku Dravida Kazhagam, challenged the constitutional validity of the 2000 amendment to the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, which required a political party to secure at least 6% of the state's valid votes and win at least two legislative seats to be recogn

KALYAN KUMAR GOGOIversusASHUTOSH AGNIHOTRI AND ANOTHER

2011 INSC 5718 January 2011Dismissed

In the 2006 Assam Legislative Assembly election, polling station No.124 was initially set up at a non‑notified school and later shifted to the notified venue. The defeated candidate, Kalyan Kumar Gogoi, alleged that this change caused chaos, preventing 200‑300 voters from casting their votes and materially affected the

MOHD. ABUBAKKAR SIDDIQUEversusMUSTAFA SHAHIDUL ISLAM AND ORS.

2000 INSC 2218 January 2000Appeal(s) allowed

Mohammed Idris Ali filed an election petition challenging the 1996 election of Mustafa Shahidul Islam to the Assam Legislative Assembly. He later applied to withdraw the petition under Section 109 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and the withdrawal notice was published in the Official Gazette on 20 Septem

IN RE : SECTION 6A OF THE CITIZENSHIP ACT 1955 versus

2024 INSC 78917 October 2024Reference answered

The case concerns the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which grants citizenship to certain migrants from Bangladesh to Assam based on cut-off dates (before 1.1.1966 and between 1.1.1966 and 25.3.1971). The provision was enacted to implement the Assam Accord. Petitioners challenged it

DHARMESH PRASAD VERMAversusFAIYAZAL AZAM

1984 INSC 12017 July 1984Appeal(s) allowed

Dharmesh Prasad Verma appealed against the election of Faiyazal Azam to the Bihar Legislative Assembly, alleging that Azam committed a corrupt practice under Section 123(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 by procuring a jeep from his friend Kabir Ahmed and using it to convey voters to the polling station

GANU RAMversusRIKHI RAM KAUNDAL AND ORS.

1984 INSC 12317 July 1984Appeal(s) allowed

Ganu Ram contested a Himachal Pradesh assembly seat reserved for Scheduled Castes. His nomination form did not contain the statutory caste declaration, but he attached a Sub‑Divisional Magistrate's certificate stating he belonged to the Lohar caste. The Returning Officer accepted the nomination and Ganu Ram was elected

MATHURA PRASADversusAJEEM KHAN

1990 INSC 14017 April 1990Appeal(s) allowed

In the 1985 Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly election for Constituency No. 14 Lahar, the Returning Officer rejected the nomination paper of candidate Ramprakash because his name could not be identified on the electoral roll and he was absent to correct the defect. The election was won by Mathura Prasad, whose electi

UPADHYAYA HARGOVIND DEVSHANKERversusDHIRENDRASINH VIRBHADRASINHJI SOLANKI & OTHERS

1988 INSC 4617 February 1988Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned an election petition filed under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, where a Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court declined to order production of election records. The petitioner appealed the interlocutory order to a Division Bench of the same High Court under clause 15 of the Letters Paten

HARKIRAT SINGHversusAMARINDER SINGH

2005 INSC 62116 December 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, an elector from Patiala Town, filed an election petition under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, alleging that the respondent, Amarinder Singh, committed corrupt practices by using a Class‑I gazetted officer and a police superintendent to further his election campaign. The Punjab

SUSHIL KUMARversusRAKESH KUMAR

2003 INSC 55316 October 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant challenged the election of the respondent to the Bihar Legislative Assembly on the ground that the respondent was under 25 years of age at the time of filing his nomination, violating Article 173(b) of the Constitution and Section 36(2) of the Representation of the People Act. The High Court dismissed the

DIGVIJAY MOTEversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1993 INSC 26416 August 1993Dismissed

The petitioner, Digvijay Mote, filed a public‑interest writ petition alleging that the electoral process in India was distorted, citing the absence of representation from Assam and Jammu & Kashmir in successive Lok Sabhas. He sought sweeping reliefs including staying the functioning of the existing Lok Sabha, restraini

SUDARSHA AVASTHIversusSHIV PAL SINGH

2008 INSC 70116 May 2008Dismissed

The appellant, Sudarsha Avasthi, filed Election Petition No. 3 of 2002 challenging the election of Shiv Pal Singh to the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council on alleged corrupt practices, including bribery to his brother and other candidates and undue influence on the Assistant Returning Officer. The petition alleged spec

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

ABHIRAM SINGHversusC.D. COMMACHEN AND ORS.

1996 INSC 52916 April 1996

The appeal arose from a Bombay High Court election petition that declared the election of a BJP candidate, Abhiram Singh, void on the ground of corrupt practices under Sections 123(3) and 123(3A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The High Court had issued a show‑cause notice under Section 99(1) to the appe

DESIYA MURPOKKU DRAVIDA KAZHAGAM AND ANR.versusTHE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA

2011 INSC 21216 March 2011Hearing Adjourned

The Supreme Court examined eleven writ petitions and three special leave petitions filed by registered unrecognised political parties seeking a common election symbol for the upcoming Tamil Nadu Assembly elections. The parties challenged several provisions of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968

MULLAPUDI VENKATA KRISHNA RAOversusVEDULASURYANARAYANA

1993 INSC 8816 March 1993Appeal(s) allowed

The election of Mullapudi Venkata Krishna Rao to the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly was challenged on the ground that he had used a poster depicting N.T. Rama Rao as Lord Krishna, together with a sloka from the Bhagavad Gita and a derogatory reference to the Congress party, thereby violating Section 123(3) of the

LOK PRAHARI, THROUGH ITS GENERAL SECRETARY S. N. SHUKLAversusUNION OF INDIA & OTHERS WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 784 OF 2015 FEBRUARY 16, 2018

2018 INSC 16416 February 2018Appeal(s) allowed

Lok Prahari, a registered society, filed a writ petition alleging that several members of Parliament and State Legislatures had amassed assets disproportionate to their known sources of income, seeking greater transparency and possible disqualification. The Court examined whether undue accretion of assets could be made

VIVEKA NAND GIRIversusNAWAL KISHORE SAHI

1984 INSC 3416 February 1984Dismissed

The appellant, having been elected to the Bihar Legislative Assembly, challenged the rejection of four of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer, particularly the paper rejected on the ground of a four‑year age discrepancy between the electoral roll and the nomination. The respondent, the defeated candidate, fi

AVTAR SINGH BRARversusTAJ SINGH & OTHERS

1984 INSC 1116 January 1984Appeal(s) allowed

Avtar Singh Brar challenged the election of Tej Singh to the Punjab Legislative Assembly, alleging that Tej Singh had engaged in a corrupt practice by circulating posters that falsely claimed candidate Ruplal had withdrawn and that votes for Tej Singh would count as votes for Ruplal. Evidence, including printing vouche

DAULAT RAM CHAUHANversusANAND SHARMA

1984 INSC 1316 January 1984Disposed off

An election petition filed by Anand Sharma challenged the election of Daulat Ram Chauhan to the Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly on the ground that Chauhan, his election agent and two other candidates, K.D. Batish and Puran Chand Sood, allegedly used libelous slogans and pamphlets to alienate voters, constituting

LAXMI KANT BAJPAIversusHAZI YAQOOB & ORS.

2009 INSC 131015 December 2009Dismissed

The appellant, Laxmi Kant Bajpai, challenged the election of Hazi Yaqoob to the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly on the ground that votes from 21 localities, allegedly outside the delimitation order, were improperly included in the electoral roll, violating Sections 100(1)(d)(iii) and (iv) of the Representation of th

YOUARAJ RAIversusCHANDER BAHADUR KARKI

2006 INSC 101915 December 2006Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined three election petitions filed in the High Court of Sikkim challenging unopposed elections to the Sikkim Legislative Assembly where the returned candidates were declared elected on 26 April 2004. The petitioners argued that the 45‑day limitation under Section 81 of the Representation of the P

CHANDRAKANT UTTAM CHODANKARversusSHRI DAYANAND RAYU MANDRAKAR AND ORS.

2004 INSC 71315 December 2004Appeal(s) allowed

Chandrakant Uttam Chodankar and Jose Philips Domingo D'Souza filed election petitions challenging the election of respondents who were alleged to hold offices of profit. The Bombay High Court dismissed the petitions on preliminary grounds, holding that the copies of the petitions served on the respondents were not true

DEWAN JOYNAL ABEDINversusABDUL WAZED ALIAS ABDUL WAZAD MIAH AND TWO OTHERS.

1987 INSC 37615 December 1987Dismissed

In the Assam Legislative Assembly election, Abdul Wazed's nomination was rejected on the ground that he was under 25 years of age and allegedly disqualified under Section 9‑A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 because he held a lease of ferry tolls under the Northern India Ferries Act, 1878. The High Court h

THAMPANOOR RAVIversusCHARUPARA RAVI AND ORS.

1999 INSC 40215 September 1999Appeal(s) allowed

Thampanoor Ravi was elected to the Kerala Legislative Assembly and his election was challenged on two grounds: (i) that he was an "undischarged insolvent" within the meaning of Article 191(1)(c) of the Constitution, and (ii) that he had indulged in corrupt practices under Section 123 of the Representation of the People

NARENDER SINGHversusMALA RAM AND ORS.

1999 INSC 40315 September 1999Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Nareder Singh, was elected to the Haryana Legislative Assembly in 1996. Defeated candidates, including Mala Ram, filed election petitions alleging that the Returning Officer had improperly rejected the nomination papers of Suresh Kumar, Yogender and Mala Ram and had improperly accepted the appellant's no

SEWARAMversusSOBARAN SINGH

1992 INSC 24615 September 1992Dismissed

Sewaram was elected to the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly from Morena, but his opponent Sobaran Singh challenged the election alleging that Sewaram held contracts with the state government at the time of filing his nomination, which would disqualify him under Section 9‑A of the Representation of the People Act, 19

UTIAMRAO SHIVDAS JANKARversusRANJITSINH VIJAYSINH MOHITE-PATIL

2009 INSC 83115 May 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant's nomination paper for the Maharashtra Legislative Council election was rejected by the Returning Officer on the ground that two proposers' signatures were forged. The appellant challenged the rejection in an election petition, alleging that the Returning Officer had erred in his decision‑making process,

GOKARAJU RANGARAJU ETC.versusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

1981 INSC 9215 April 1981Dismissed

The appellants were convicted by two District Judges whose appointments were later declared invalid for violating Article 233 of the Constitution. The appellants argued that the judgments rendered by those judges were void and that the Constitution (20th Amendment) rendered them a surplusage. The Supreme Court held tha

AJAY ARJUN SLNGHversusSHARADENDU TIWARI & OTHERS

2016 INSC 26415 March 2016Disposed off

The case concerned an election petition filed by Sharadendu Tiwari challenging the election of Ajay Arjun Singh. The dispute centered on whether the petition was accompanied by an affidavit in the statutory Form 25 as required by the proviso to Section 83(1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and whether

ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2024 INSC 11315 February 2024

The Supreme Court of India struck down the Electoral Bond Scheme and related amendments to the Finance Act 2017, which had introduced anonymous financial contributions to political parties. The Court held that the scheme violated the right to information of voters under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, as informat

KAPIL MUNI KARWARIYAversusCHANDRA NARAIN TRIPATHI

2012 INSC 9215 February 2012Dismissed

In the 51‑Phulpur Lok Sabha election, Kapil Muni Karwaria was declared elected after the Returning Officer rejected Chandra Narain Tripathi's nomination for lacking the required ten proposers under Section 33 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, because the second proposer, Pramod Kumar, had been deleted from

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

VIDYA CHARAN SHUKLAversusPURSHOTTAM LAL KAUSHIK

1981 INSC 1415 January 1981Appeal(s) allowed

Vidya Charan Shukla was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment exceeding two years, but his conviction was stayed pending appeal. He filed his nomination for the Lok Sabha election, which was accepted despite an objection that he was disqualified under Section 8(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. He was

AFJAL ANSARIversusSTATE OF UP

2023 INSC 107114 December 2023Case Partly allowed

Afzal Ansari, a sitting Member of Parliament, was convicted under Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act and sentenced to four years' imprisonment, resulting in his disqualification from the Lok Sabha under Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act. He appealed t

RAVIKANT S. PATILversusSARVABHOUMA S. BAGALI

2006 INSC 84314 November 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Ravikant S. Patil, was convicted in 2000 for offences under IPC sections 366 and 376 and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment. While his criminal appeal was pending, the Bombay High Court stayed both the execution of the sentence and, on 26 March 2004, the conviction itself so that he could file his no

SOMNATH RATHversusBIKRAM K. ARUKH AND ORS.

1999 INSC 39714 September 1999Appeal(s) allowed

In the 1995 Bhanjanagar Assembly election, the Returning Officer rejected the nomination of Panchanan Das (respondent No. 7) on the ground that he was a dealer under the Public Distribution System (PDS). The appellant, Somnath Rath, challenged the election of the returned candidate, Bikram K. Arukh, alleging that the r

JAGANNATH RAMCHANDRA NUNEKARversusGENU GOVIND KADAM & OTHERS

1988 INSC 27714 September 1988Case Allowed

Jagannath Ramchandra Nunekar, an elector from Shivaji Nagar, sought to contest a bye‑election in Jaoli and applied for a certified copy of his entry in the Shivaji Nagar electoral roll. He received a copy on 8 January 1986 showing the latest publication date as 31‑Jan‑1984 and filed his nomination on 9 January, but the

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

ARJUN PANDITRAO KHOTKARversusKAILASH KUSHANRAO GORANTYAL AND ORS.

2020 INSC 45314 July 2020Dismissed

The appellant, Arjun Panditrao Khotkar, was elected to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly but his election was challenged on the ground that two of his nomination papers were filed after the statutory deadline. The High Court relied on video recordings of the Returning Officer's office, produced by the Election Commi

ANIL BALUNIversusSURENDRA SINGH NEGI

2005 INSC 29414 July 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The Election Commission notified elections for the Uttaranchal Legislative Assembly and the appellant, Anil Baluni, filed four sets of nomination papers on 22 January 2002 along with Forms A and B of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968. The Returning Officer later rejected the papers, claiming

MICHAEL B. FERNANDESversusC.K. JAFFER SHARIEF AND ORS .

2001 INSC 8814 February 2001Dismissed

The appellant filed an election petition challenging the election of respondent No.1 to the Lok Sabha and impleaded the Election Commissioner, Returning Officer and Chief Electoral Officer as respondents. The High Court ordered their deletion, holding that Section 82 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 limits

A. MADAN MOHANversusKALAVAKUNTA CHANDRASEKHARA

1984 INSC 3014 February 1984Dismissed

The respondent filed an election petition alleging corrupt practices by the returned candidate. The returned candidate sought dismissal of the petition in limine under Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, claiming the petition violated Section 81(3) because copies of documents and schedules were not serv

MANOHAR JOSHIversusBHAURAO RAGOJI PATIL THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES

1992 INSC 414 January 1992Dismissed

Bhaurao Ragoji Patil filed an election petition challenging Manohar Joshi's election, but died before the case proceeded, causing the petition to abate under Section 112(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Four persons, including the respondents, applied for substitution under Section 112(3) within the pr

CHARAN LAL SAHU & OTHERSversusGIANI ZAIL SINGH & ANOTHER

1983 INSC 19613 December 1983Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined three election petitions challenging the election of Giani Zail Singh as President of India. The petitioners, who had not been duly nominated as candidates under the Presidential and Vice‑Presidential Elections Act, 1952, claimed the returned candidate exercised undue influence and was unsuit

SHRIMANTH BALASAHEB PATILversusHON’BLE SPEAKER, KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AND OTHERS

2019 INSC 123713 November 2019Disposed off

The petitioners, elected members of the 15th Karnataka Legislative Assembly, tendered resignations after being accused of defying party whips, but the Speaker rejected their resignations and disqualified them under the Tenth Schedule, imposing a ban lasting until the end of the Assembly term. The Supreme Court examined

KIMNEO HAOKIP HANGSHINGversusKENN RAIKHAN & ORS.

2024 INSC 68913 September 2024Dismissed

The appellant, a Member of the Manipur Legislative Assembly, was elected from the Saikul constituency in 2022. The respondent filed an election petition alleging that the appellant concealed assets worth about Rs. 2 crore and falsified her income, thereby committing corrupt practices. The appellant moved an application

RESURGENCE INDIAversusELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ANR.

2013 INSC 61713 September 2013Disposed off

Resurgence India, an NGO, observed that many candidates in the 2007 Punjab Legislative Assembly elections filed affidavits with blank entries for criminal, asset and educational details, violating the spirit of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The petition sought a direction that Returning Officers must reje

MAHADEORAO SUKAJI SHIVANKARversusRAMARATAN BAPU AND ORS.

2004 INSC 44813 August 2004Appeal(s) allowed

In the 1999 election for the Amgaon Legislative Constituency, the appellant was declared elected and the defeated respondent filed an election petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 alleging corrupt practices such as unaccounted money and distribution of goods. The appellant moved the High Court unde

D.B. RAJUversusH.J. KANTHARAJ AND OTHERS

1990 INSC 20213 July 1990Dismissed

The appellant D.B. Raju contested his election to the Karnataka Legislative Council, alleging that the 242 nominated members from 121 Mandal Panchayats were added to the electoral roll after the deadline for filing nomination papers (3 p.m., 3 June 1988). The High Court held that the roll was not updated by that time a

P.H. PAUL MANOJ PANDIANversusMR. P. VELDURAI

2011 INSC 29513 April 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant challenged the election of the respondent on the ground that the respondent had subsisting government contracts at the time of filing his nomination papers, which under Section 9A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 renders a candidate disqualified. The dispute turned on the validity of the term

PEOPLE'S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES (PUCL) AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

2003 INSC 17613 March 2003Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the constitutionality of Section 33B (also called Section 338) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, inserted by the 3rd Amendment Act, 2002, which barred candidates from disclosing any information not expressly required by the Act despite Supreme Court directions. The Court held tha

BRIJ MOHANversusMANGE RAM & ORS.

1985 INSC 5713 March 1985Appeal(s) allowed

In the 1982 Haryana Legislative Assembly election, Brij Mohan was declared elected from Jind constituency, defeating Mange Ram. Mange Ram filed an election petition alleging that Brij Mohan had committed the corrupt practice of bribery under Section 123(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 by giving a donat

BRIJ MOHANversusSAT PAL

1985 INSC 5813 March 1985Appeal(s) allowed

The election petition filed by Sat Pal challenged the election of the appellant to the Haryana Legislative Assembly on the ground that the nomination paper of another candidate, Dog Ram, had been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer due to clerical errors in the part numbers of the electoral roll. The Single Ju

HARJIT SINGH MANNversusS. UMRAO SINGH AND OTHERS

1979 INSC 26512 December 1979Dismissed

Harjit Singh Mann challenged the election of S. Umrao Singh on three grounds: the alleged late filing of his nomination paper, failure to make the required oath, and alleged bribery by the respondent. The Supreme Court held that the nomination paper was filed after the statutory deadline of 3 p.m., a mandatory defect u

SHARLF-UD-DINversusABDUL GANI LONE

1979 INSC 23412 November 1979Dismissed

The appellant, Sharif‑ud‑Din, filed an election petition challenging the election of Abdul Gani from the Handwara constituency. The petition was dismissed by the Jammu & Kashmir High Court because the copies of the petition were attested by the appellant’s advocate, Piyare Lal Handoo, rather than by the appellant himse

ANANGA UDAY SINGH DEOversusRANGA NATH MISHRA AND ORS.

2001 INSC 50412 October 2001Dismissed

Ananga Uday Singh Deo challenged the election of three Rajya Sabha candidates, alleging corrupt practices and an improper vote‑counting procedure. The Supreme Court held that a charge of corrupt practice must be pleaded with full particulars under Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act and proved beyond rea

HARISHANKAR JAINversusSONIA GANDHI

2001 INSC 43812 September 2001Dismissed

The appellants Hari Shanker Jain and Hari Krishna Lal challenged the election of Sonia Gandhi to the Lok Sabha, alleging that she was not a citizen of India despite holding a certificate of citizenship under Section 5(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. They also questioned the constitutional validity of the Citizenshi

NIDHI KAIMversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & OTHERS ETC.

2017 INSC 13112 May 2016Directions issued

The appellants, who had secured admission to medical colleges in Madhya Pradesh through the Pre‑Medical Entrance Test (PMT), challenged the cancellation of their results and admissions on the grounds that the Vyapam Board was not validly constituted under the Madhya Pradesh Professional Examination Board Act, 2007 and

KODIKUNNIL SURESH @ J. MONIANversusN.S. SAJI KUMAR, ETC. ETC.

2011 INSC 39012 May 2011Appeal(s) allowed

Kodikkunnil Suresh was elected from the Mavelikkara Lok Sabha seat reserved for Scheduled Castes. His election was challenged on the ground that he was a Christian and therefore not a member of any Scheduled Caste under the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950. The High Court declared his election void, holding

DR. (MRS.) VIMALversusBHAGUJI AND ORS.

1995 INSC 37212 May 1995Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined an election petition challenging Dr. (Mrs.) Vimal Mundada’s election to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly on the ground that she had appealed to voters on religious lines and promoted communal hatred through speeches delivered with her consent, allegedly constituting corrupt practice under

SHANKER DASSversusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

1985 INSC 4812 March 1985Case Allowed

Shankar Dass, a cash clerk, was convicted of breach of trust and released under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Despite the probation, the Government dismissed him from service. He challenged the dismissal, arguing that section 12 of the Probation Act barred any "disqualification" such as dismissal,

AJAY MAKENversusADESH KUMAR GUPTA & ANR.

2012 INSC 57711 December 2012Disposed off

The Delhi High Court dismissed an election petition challenging the 2009 Lok Sabha election of Ajay Maken on grounds of alleged corrupt practices. The appellant argued that the petition should be thrown out for (i) the copy served on him not being a true copy under Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act,

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.versusDEEPA DEVI AND ORS.

2007 INSC 125711 December 2007Appeal(s) allowed

During the 1993 Assembly elections, a Maruti Gypsy owned by Respondent No.3 and insured by National Insurance Co. Ltd. was requisitioned by the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate under the Representation of the People Act. While the magistrate was travelling in the vehicle, it met with an accident that caused the death of a boy

DR. RAMESH YESHWANT PRABOOversusSHRI PRABHAKER KASHINATH KUNTE AND ORS.

1995 INSC 86811 December 1995Dismissed

The 1987 Vile Parle Assembly election of Dr. Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo was challenged on the ground that his agent, Bal Thackeray, made speeches appealing to voters on the basis of Hindu religion and inciting communal feelings. The High Court held the speeches to be corrupt practices under Sections 123(3) and 123(3A) of

MANOHAR JOSHIversusNITIN BHAURAO PATIL AND ANR.

1995 INSC 86911 December 1995Appeal(s) allowed

Manohar Joshi, the BJP‑Shiv Sena candidate, was elected from Dadar in 1990. Bhaurao Patil filed an election petition alleging corrupt practices under sections 123(3) and 123(3A) of the Representation of the People Act, relying on Joshi's speeches, those of party leaders and audio‑video cassettes. The Bombay High Court

PROF. RAMCHANDRA G. KAPSE ETC.versusHARIBANSH RAMAKBAL SINGH ETC

1995 INSC 87011 December 1995Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined an election petition that had declared the Lok Sabha election of Prof. Ramchandra G. Kapse void on the ground of alleged corrupt practices involving speeches by Sadhvi Reethambara and Pramod Mahajan. The Court held that a noticee under Section 99 of the Representation of the People Act has an

RAMAKANT MAYEKAR ETC. ETC.versusSMT. CELINE D SILVA

1995 INSC 87111 December 1995Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Ramakant Mayekar challenged a High Court order that declared his election to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly void on grounds of corrupt practices under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The Supreme Court examined whether the election petition filed on 16 April 1990 was within the 45‑day lim

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