https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179951 Proof of non-compliance with election law alone is insufficient to void an election under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951; the petitioner must also show by cogent, reliable evidence that the result, so far as the returned candidate is concerned, was materially affected. A polling station shifted from a non-notified venue to the notified place amounted to irregularity, but the challenge failed because the appellant did not prove that the breach altered the electoral outcome. Hearsay evidence was inadmissible for showing that voters left without voting or would have supported the appellant, and the oral evidence was found unreliable. en-us Tue, 18 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 16 May 2023 15:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179951 Proof of non-compliance with election law alone is insufficient to void an election under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951; the petitioner must also show by cogent, reliable evidence that the result, so far as the returned candidate is concerned, was materially affected. A polling station shifted from a non-notified venue to the notified place amounted to irregularity, but the challenge failed because the appellant did not prove that the breach altered the electoral outcome. Hearsay evidence was inadmissible for showing that voters left without voting or would have supported the appellant, and the oral evidence was found unreliable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 18 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179951