9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the nomination of Dudh Nath was improperly accepted by the Returning Officer. 2. Whether the result of the election was materially affected by the improper acceptance of the nomination. Detailed Analysis: 1. Improper Acceptance of Nomination: The appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution challenges the Election Tribunal's decision to set aside the election of the returned candidate due to the improper acceptance of Dudh Nath's nomination. The Tribunal found that Dudh Nath personated another individual and used incorrect electoral roll entries, leading to the improper acceptance of his nomination. The Returning Officer's acceptance of the nomination was contested under Section 36(6) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which requires the Returning Officer to endorse his decision on the nomination paper. The Tribunal ruled that the improper acceptance materially affected the election result, thus declaring the election void under Section 100(1)(c) of the Act. 2. Material Effect on Election Result: The Supreme Court emphasized that for an election to be declared void under Section 100(1)(c), it must be proven that the result was materially affected. The burden of proof lies on the petitioner to show that the improper acceptance of the nomination impacted the election outcome. The Court referred to various precedents and the English Ballot Act, 1872, which places the onus on the petitioner to demonstrate the material effect. The Court noted that mere possibilities or conjectures are insufficient; affirmative evidence is required to prove that the wasted votes would have altered the election result. The Tribunal's finding that the election result was materially affected was based on the fact that Dudh Nath received more votes than the margin between the returned candidate and the next highest candidate. However, the Supreme Court held that this inference was speculative and not supported by positive evidence. The Court reiterated that the petitioner must prove that the improper acceptance of the nomination materially affected the election result, failing which the election must stand. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's order, holding that the result of the election was not proven to be materially affected by the improper acceptance of the nomination. The election of the appellant was upheld, and the respondents were ordered to pay the appellant's costs incurred in the proceedings. The Court emphasized the need for legislative intervention to address the difficulties faced by petitioners in proving material effects under the current legal framework.
|
