High Court to try election petitions

Related judgements & precedents

These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.

1. Ajay Arun Singh vs Sharadendu Tiwari

   Supreme Court of India 15 Mar 2016 Binding (SC) Reportable Civil Appeal No. 2697/2016 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 33933 of 2014) and connected matters

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   Where an election petition is filed challenging an election on grounds of corrupt practice, the requirements of verification under Order VI Rule 15(4) of CPC and the requirement of an affidavit in Form 25 under proviso to Section 83(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, can be satisfied by a single composite affidavit. Substantial compliance with statutory form requirements is sufficient; absolute compliance with prescribed format is not necessary. A defect in affidavit format is curable and does not render the election petition defective in limine. The absence of Registrar's signature on affidavit pages due to Registrar's omission does not create a rebuttable presumption that the affidavit was not filed with the original petition, as the court's act or omission shall not prejudice a party's rights. Questions of fact that were never in issue and not directly examined in earlier proceedings are not barred from being relitigated by principles of res judicata or estoppel. High Court Rules framed under Article 225 cannot override or curtail statutory provisions regarding jurisdiction of election petitions under Section 80A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

   On this section: Court held that Section 80A(2) provides that election petitions are ordinarily tried by single judge, with discretion in Chief Justice. This statutory provision cannot be restricted by High Court Rules framed under Article 225.

   Read the full order on eCourts India

2. Ajay Arun Singh vs Sharadendu Tiwari

   Supreme Court of India 15 Mar 2016 Binding (Supreme Court) Reportable (2016) 3 SCC 1 (Inferred from reportable status)

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   In election petitions challenging elections on grounds of corrupt practices, the requirement of Section 83(1) proviso can be satisfied by a single composite affidavit that covers both the verification requirements under CPC Order VI Rule 15(4) and the corrupt practice allegations, provided such affidavit is filed with the petition on the date of presentation in substantial compliance with Form 25. The question whether an affidavit was filed with the petition on the date of presentation is a pure question of fact that must be directly and substantially in issue in the proceeding for the doctrine of res judicata to apply. The failure of the Registrar to affix his signature on an affidavit does not constitute proof that the affidavit was not filed with the petition, as the act or omission of the Court shall not prejudice the rights of any party. Substantial compliance with the prescribed format of the affidavit is sufficient; absolute compliance is not necessary.

   On this section: Election petitions to be tried ordinarily by Single Judge of High Court; Chief Justice has discretion to assign more than one Judge

   Read the full order on eCourts India

The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.