Jaldi-Vidhi

Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen

Case details and hearing information from the Constitution Bench Pendency Portal.

565

Message: show

Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen

2025-01-17T11:05:52.401872+05:30

This case will answer whether the notice issued by the Court under Section 99 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is mandatorily required to contain evidence and findings of corrupt practices.

Petitioners Arguments: In Manohar Joshi v. Damodar Tatyaba , the Supreme Court held that the Court must extract pleadings of corrupt practices, oral and documentary evidence and that the order of the Judge is required to indicate portions of his findings of the speaker committing the said corrupt practices. This mandatory requirement has not been complied with rendering the judgment illegal.
Responders Arguments: The court orders do not contain the respondent's arguments.
Last Listed On: 2023-05-03
Start Date: 2023-05-03
Card Stage Date: 2023-05-03
Review Petition No: C.A. No. 37/1992
Case Status: Pending
Bench Status: Not Constituted
Subject Matter: Civil Law
Pendency: 3 years, 1 month, 27 days

5 Judge Bench

2024-01-04T12:23:31.606715+05:30

Reference to larger bench

2024-02-07T08:07:41.724704+05:30

Consider As Stage Of Pendency: true

Date of institution of case

2024-02-07T08:07:40.886454+05:30

Date of reference to 5 Judge Bench

2024-12-30T08:38:36.514676+05:30

2025-01-17T11:28:55.755650+05:30

The Civil Appeal emanates out of the 1990 election for the Santa Cruz seat in Maharashtra’s State Legislative Assembly. The appellant was declared as elected on 01-03-1990, whereas the primary respondent secured the second largest number of votes. The respondent then filed Election Petition no. 11 of 1991 before the Bombay High Court alleging corrupt practices of appealing to religion and creating religious enmity on account of speeches of certain leaders who work on behalf of the appellant, under Section 123(2), (3), and (3A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The High Court held that, prima facie, it appeared that the appellant had appealed for votes for the Hindu candidates of the party on the basis of their religion and community. Under Section 99 of the 1951 Act, the High Court therefore issued notice to the appellant for hearing. The appellant appealed the decision to the Supreme Court on the ground of non-compliance with the procedural requirements laid down by the Supreme Court in Manohar Joshi v. Damodar Tatyaba . A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court formulated three specific questions for consideration along with stating that the scope of what constitutes “corrupt practices” under Section 123 of the 1951 Act also needs to be examined. Hence, the Bench referred the entire matter to a five-judge bench. During the hearing, the five-judge bench referred the limited question of the interpretation of Section 123(3) to a seven-judge bench. The seven-judge bench answered the question vide judgment dated 02-01-2017 and referred the matter to a regular bench for disposal. Since the judgment by the seven-judge bench answered only a limited question from the original reference order, the matter is again referred to a five-judge bench for determination of the remaining questions of law.

2025-01-17T11:29:54.006802+05:30

Is the Court required to record proof of the corrupt practices of the candidate or any other person on his behalf? If the corrupt practices are committed by someone on the candidate’s behalf, whether the consent of the candidate is required to be proved? If consent and corrupt practices are proved, should the notice issued to the candidate under Section 99(1) Proviso (a) contain extraction of pleadings of corrupt practices along with the evidence and findings?

Section 99 of the Representation of the People Act 1951

2025-01-17T11:09:40.201127+05:30

2025-01-17T11:30:27.313695+05:30

The entire case requires to be heard and decided by a large Bench of five Judges since the decision thereon impinges upon the purity of election process and requires to be decided authoritatively.