TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court: Election petition not dismissed for affidavit defects. Hindi petitions allowed.</h1> <h3>Dr. Vijay Laxmi Sadho Versus Jagdish</h3> The Supreme Court held that an election petition cannot be dismissed in limine for defective affidavit verification under Section 83(1) of the ... - Issues Involved:1. Defective Affidavit and Verification.2. Language of the Election Petition.Summary:1. Defective Affidavit and Verification:The appellant contended that the affidavit supporting the election petition was not in the prescribed form as required by Section 83(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, read with Rule 94-A and Form No. 25. The appellant argued that the affidavit contained contradictory verifications, rendering it defective and thus liable to be dismissed u/s 86(1) of the Act. The Supreme Court, however, held that an election petition is not liable to be dismissed in limine u/s 86(1) for non-compliance with Section 83(1). The Court cited F.A. Sapa vs. Singora, emphasizing that defects in verification can be cured and do not merit dismissal of an election petition in limine. The Court upheld the High Court's decision to dismiss I.A. No. 2806/99.2. Language of the Election Petition:The appellant argued that the election petition should be dismissed as it was drawn up in Hindi, violating Rule 2(b) of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules, which mandates that every election petition shall be written in English. The Supreme Court noted that Article 348(2) of the Constitution allows the use of Hindi in High Court proceedings if authorized by the Governor with the President's consent. The Court referred to a Notification dated 18th September 1971, which authorized the use of Hindi in the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The Court concluded that Rule 2(b) of the High Court Rules must be read in conjunction with this Notification, and thus, an election petition in Hindi is maintainable. The Court rejected the contrary view expressed in Jai Bhansingh Pawaiya vs. Shri Madhavrao Scindia and upheld the High Court's decision to dismiss I.A. No. 5957/99.The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of judicial discipline and the need for consistency in legal interpretations. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs, and the High Court was requested to expeditiously dispose of the election petition.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
