https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172707 An interlocutory direction to produce Form 17A registers from 38 polling stations was held unsustainable because the election petition pleaded booth capturing only, not double voting or impersonation, and no prima facie case or framed issue supported the request. The Court noted that allegations of improper reception of votes require material facts, including particulars of who impersonated whom and how the result was affected. Rule 93(1)(dd) permits inspection of Form 17A only sparingly, under a competent court's order, when clear necessity is shown. A second request after evidence had begun, apparently to gather evidence and improve the case, was rejected to protect electoral secrecy. en-us Thu, 02 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Oct 2015 10:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172707 An interlocutory direction to produce Form 17A registers from 38 polling stations was held unsustainable because the election petition pleaded booth capturing only, not double voting or impersonation, and no prima facie case or framed issue supported the request. The Court noted that allegations of improper reception of votes require material facts, including particulars of who impersonated whom and how the result was affected. Rule 93(1)(dd) permits inspection of Form 17A only sparingly, under a competent court's order, when clear necessity is shown. A second request after evidence had begun, apparently to gather evidence and improve the case, was rejected to protect electoral secrecy. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 02 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172707