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 Decision: Consent in Election Practices</h1> <h3>Sheopat Singh Versus Harish Chandra and Ors.</h3> The Supreme Court upheld the decision regarding the election petition, emphasizing the use of mechanically propelled vehicles for transporting voters and ... - Issues:1. Allegations of corrupt practices in the conduct of election under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.2. Use of mechanical vehicles for the transport of voters to and from the polling stations.3. Interpretation of the term 'consent' in relation to the commission of corrupt practices by the candidate's agents.4. Application of the law regarding consent and knowledge of corrupt practices in determining the validity of the election.Analysis:Issue 1: Allegations of corrupt practicesThe case involved a petition filed under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, challenging the election of the appellant to the Legislative Assembly of the State of Rajasthan. The petition alleged multiple corrupt practices by the appellant during the election, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.Issue 2: Use of mechanical vehiclesThe primary issue before the court was the use of mechanical vehicles for transporting voters to and from polling stations. The specific allegation was detailed in the petition, and evidence was presented regarding the use of jeeps for this purpose. The Election Tribunal and the High Court examined various instances of such transportation and made findings based on the evidence presented.Issue 3: Interpretation of 'consent'A crucial aspect of the case revolved around the interpretation of the term 'consent' in relation to the commission of corrupt practices by the candidate's agents. The High Court analyzed the evidence related to the use of vehicles and concluded that the appellant's implied consent could be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the transportation of voters using mechanically propelled vehicles.Issue 4: Application of the lawThe appellant raised a legal argument concerning the substitution of the word 'consent' for 'connivance' in the relevant section of the Act. The court examined whether this change in terminology required a stricter standard of proof regarding the candidate's involvement in corrupt practices. The court ultimately affirmed the findings of the lower courts, emphasizing that the evidence supported the inference of the appellant's consent to the commission of corrupt practices by his agents.In summary, the Supreme Court upheld the decision regarding the election petition, emphasizing the use of mechanically propelled vehicles for transporting voters and the inference of the candidate's consent to such practices. The court clarified the interpretation of 'consent' in the context of corrupt practices and affirmed that the evidence supported the finding that the appellant was aware of and consented to the actions of his agents. The legal argument regarding the change in terminology from 'connivance' to 'consent' was also addressed, with the court concluding that the amendment did not alter the fundamental principles governing the determination of electoral malpractices.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
