9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Qualification of respondent No. 1 as an elector. 2. Jurisdiction of the court to question the validity of an entry in the Electoral Roll. 3. Allegations of corrupt practices. Detailed Analysis: 1. Qualification of Respondent No. 1 as an Elector: The primary issue was whether respondent No. 1 was qualified to stand for election, specifically if he was an elector for the Jamkhandi Constituency. The petitioners alleged that respondent No. 1 had ceased to be ordinarily resident within the Jamkhandi Constituency due to his prolonged stay in Bangalore and had manipulated his entry in the Electoral Roll. The trial judge found that the petitioners failed to prove that respondent No. 1 was not an elector and was not qualified to stand for election. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, emphasizing that the evidence on this issue was irrelevant due to the jurisdictional findings. 2. Jurisdiction of the Court to Question the Validity of an Entry in the Electoral Roll: The court examined whether it had jurisdiction to question the validity of an entry in the Electoral Roll under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (the "Act"). The trial judge initially held that the court had jurisdiction, but the Supreme Court disagreed. The Supreme Court analyzed relevant provisions, including Section 5(c) of the Act, which states that a person must be an elector for any Assembly constituency in the state to qualify for election. The court noted that the term "elector" is defined as a person whose name is entered in the Electoral Roll and who is not disqualified under Section 16 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (the "Act of 1950"). The court concluded that the validity of an entry in the Electoral Roll could only be challenged through the mechanisms provided in the Act of 1950, not in an election petition. Therefore, the evidence related to the validity of respondent No. 1's entry in the Electoral Roll was deemed irrelevant, and the trial judge's decision on this issue was affirmed. 3. Allegations of Corrupt Practices: The court also considered allegations of corrupt practices. The petitioners alleged that certain government officials were not impartial and that their actions could have influenced the election outcome. The Supreme Court expressed concern over the impression that authorities in Mysore were not careful in their postings, which could have affected the perception of free and fair elections. The court highlighted the importance of maintaining the integrity of elections to inspire confidence among electors. However, the court did not find sufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations of corrupt practices and ultimately dismissed the appeal. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's decision. It held that the court lacked jurisdiction to question the validity of an entry in the Electoral Roll in an election petition and found no sufficient evidence to prove the allegations of corrupt practices. The court emphasized the need for free and fair elections and the importance of maintaining public confidence in the electoral process. No order as to costs was made.
|
