https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171622 The Supreme Court clarified that High Courts have jurisdiction under Article 226 to issue writs against decisions of Election Tribunals. It held that Rule 47(1)(c) is mandatory, rejecting the argument for a directory interpretation. The Court deemed the Election Commission's approval of ballot papers with incorrect distinguishing marks as invalid. It emphasized that Section 100(2)(c) requires both improper conduct and a material effect on election results for setting aside an election. Additionally, the Court affirmed that Election Tribunals are subject to High Court superintendence under Article 227. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed previous decisions, set aside the election, and ordered a fresh election. en-us Thu, 09 Dec 1954 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 27 Jul 2015 17:13:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171622 The Supreme Court clarified that High Courts have jurisdiction under Article 226 to issue writs against decisions of Election Tribunals. It held that Rule 47(1)(c) is mandatory, rejecting the argument for a directory interpretation. The Court deemed the Election Commission's approval of ballot papers with incorrect distinguishing marks as invalid. It emphasized that Section 100(2)(c) requires both improper conduct and a material effect on election results for setting aside an election. Additionally, the Court affirmed that Election Tribunals are subject to High Court superintendence under Article 227. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed previous decisions, set aside the election, and ordered a fresh election. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 09 Dec 1954 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171622