TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the improper acceptance of a nomination paper had materially affected the result of the election under section 100(1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. (ii) Whether the burden of proving material effect lay on the petitioner challenging the election.
Issue (i): Whether the improper acceptance of a nomination paper had materially affected the result of the election under section 100(1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Analysis: The provision required proof that the result of the election had been materially affected by the improper acceptance or rejection of a nomination. The Court held that the inquiry could not rest on mere possibility or conjecture as to how votes might have been distributed had the candidate not been in the field. The fact that the votes secured by the candidate whose nomination was accepted exceeded the margin of victory did not by itself establish material effect. The question was one of fact requiring positive evidence showing that the election result was actually affected.
Conclusion: The improper acceptance was not proved to have materially affected the result of the election.
Issue (ii): Whether the burden of proving material effect lay on the petitioner challenging the election.
Analysis: The language of section 100(1)(c) was treated as placing the onus on the objector to establish that the result had been materially affected. The Court distinguished the English ballot law, under which the negative was cast differently, and reaffirmed that under the Representation of the People Act the petitioner must adduce affirmative evidence. In the absence of such proof, the election could not be set aside.
Conclusion: The burden lay on the petitioner, and it was not discharged.
Final Conclusion: The election petition failed on the decisive factual issue, the tribunal's finding was set aside, and the appellant's election was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: In a challenge under section 100(1)(c), an election is not void unless the objector affirmatively proves, by positive evidence, that the improper acceptance or rejection of a nomination materially affected the result; mere probability or conjecture is insufficient.
TaxTMI 
