9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Disqualification under Article 173(b) of the Constitution due to age. 2. Undue influence exercised on voters by state ministers. 3. Secrecy of the ballot not maintained. 4. Improper deletion of voters' names from the final list. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disqualification under Article 173(b) of the Constitution due to age: The appellant contested the election of Seetharam Reddy on the grounds that he was disqualified under Article 173(b) of the Constitution, being below 30 years of age on the relevant date. The Election Tribunal dismissed the petition, rejecting both oral and documentary evidence presented by the appellant to prove that Seetharam Reddy was born in October 1931. The Tribunal found that Seetharam Reddy did not study in the Kurnool Muslim High School, dismissing the related documents as unreliable. Instead, the Tribunal relied on documents from proceedings before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which indicated that Seetharam Reddy was treated as a major by 1356 Fasli. The High Court confirmed this finding but also considered additional evidence, including documents not tendered before the Tribunal. The appellant argued that the High Court admitted this additional evidence without jurisdiction. However, the Supreme Court held that even if there was an error in admitting additional evidence, it would not constitute a lack of jurisdiction but an error in the exercise of jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that the discretion to receive additional evidence must be judicial and within the limitations of Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court's omission to record reasons for admitting additional evidence was deemed a serious defect but not mandatory. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court had applied its mind and required the additional evidence to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause, thus dismissing the appellant's contention. 2. Undue influence exercised on voters by state ministers: The appellant alleged that the election was vitiated by undue influence exercised on voters by some ministers of the State of Andhra Pradesh. This objection was rejected by the Election Tribunal, which found no evidence to support the claim. The High Court confirmed this finding, and the Supreme Court noted that the correctness of these findings, being findings of fact, was not open to challenge before it in this appeal by special leave. 3. Secrecy of the ballot not maintained: The appellant argued that the secrecy of the ballot was not maintained during the election. The Election Tribunal dismissed this objection, and the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision. The Supreme Court reiterated that findings of fact by the lower courts could not be challenged in this appeal. 4. Improper deletion of voters' names from the final list: The appellant contended that the election was void due to the improper deletion of names from the voters' list. The Election Tribunal rejected this objection, and the High Court confirmed the Tribunal's decision. The Supreme Court affirmed that these findings of fact could not be contested in this appeal. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision on all points. The Court found no justification to interfere with the findings of fact and concluded that the High Court had properly exercised its discretion in admitting additional evidence. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
|
