https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200719 In a composite election petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, a returned candidate who does not file a recrimination petition under Section 97(1) cannot insist that rejected ballots allegedly in his favour be counted to support a counter-claim for election. The statutory scheme bars him from challenging the election petitioner's claim without following the prescribed procedure. The Court also noted that scrutiny of rejected ballots cast for the election petitioner may still be undertaken under Section 100(1)(d)(iii) to test whether improper rejection materially affected the result. The valid recount of the election petitioner's rejected votes was therefore legally significant despite the absence of recrimination by the returned candidate. en-us Tue, 30 Oct 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 26 Oct 2018 15:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200719 In a composite election petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, a returned candidate who does not file a recrimination petition under Section 97(1) cannot insist that rejected ballots allegedly in his favour be counted to support a counter-claim for election. The statutory scheme bars him from challenging the election petitioner's claim without following the prescribed procedure. The Court also noted that scrutiny of rejected ballots cast for the election petitioner may still be undertaken under Section 100(1)(d)(iii) to test whether improper rejection materially affected the result. The valid recount of the election petitioner's rejected votes was therefore legally significant despite the absence of recrimination by the returned candidate. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 30 Oct 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200719