Trademark Pirates Face Legal Wrath: Delhi HC Enforces Radio Mirchi’s IP Rights Swiftly Madras High Court Upholds Extended Adjudication Period Under Customs Act Amid Allegations of Systemic Lapses Disputes Over Religious Office Will Be Consolidated for Efficient Adjudication, Holds Karnataka High Court Motive Alone, Without Corroborative Evidence, Insufficient for Conviction : High Court Acquits Accused in 1993 Murder Case Himachal Pradesh HC Criticizes State for Delays: Orders Timely Action on Employee Grievances Calls for Pragmatic Approach to Desertion and Cruelty in Divorce Cases: Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Trial Juvenile Tried as Adult: Bombay High Court Validates JJB Decision, Modifies Sentence to 7 Years Retrospective Application of Amended Rules for Redeployment Declared Invalid: Orissa High Court NDPS Act Leaves No Room for Leniency: HC Requires Substantial Proof of Innocence for Bail No Protection Without Performance: MP High Court Denies Relief Under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act Delays in processing applications for premature release cannot deprive convicts of interim relief: Karnataka High Court Grants 90-Day Parole Listing All Appeals Arising From A Common Judgment Before The Same Bench Avoids Contradictory Rulings: Full Bench of the Patna High Court. Age Claims in Borderline Cases Demand Scrutiny: Madhya Pradesh HC on Juvenile Justice Act Bishop Garden Not Available for Partition Due to Legal Quietus on Declaration Suit: Madras High Court Exclusion of Certain Heirs Alone Does Not Make a Will Suspicious: Kerala High Court Upholds Validity of Will Proof of Delivery Was Never Requested, Nor Was it a Payment Precondition: Delhi High Court Held Courier Firm Entitled to Payment Despite Non-Delivery Allegations Widowed Daughter Eligible for Compassionate Appointment under BSNL Scheme: Allahabad High Court Brutality of an Offence Does Not Dispense With Legal Proof: Supreme Court Overturns Life Imprisonment of Two Accused Marumakkathayam Law | Partition Is An Act By Which The Nature Of The Property Is Changed, Reflecting An Alteration In Ownership: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claim | Compensation Must Aim To Restore, As Far As Possible, What Has Been Irretrievably Lost: Supreme Court Awards Rs. 1.02 Crore Personal Criticism Of Judges Or Recording Findings On Their Conduct In Judgments Must Be Avoided: Supreme Court Efficiency In Arbitral Proceedings Is Integral To Effective Dispute Resolution. Courts Must Ensure That Arbitral Processes Reach Their Logical End: Supreme Court Onus Lies On The Propounder To Remove All Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding A Will To The Satisfaction Of The Court: Calcutta High Court Deeds of Gift Not Governed by Section 22-B of Registration Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Testimony Of  Injured Witness Carries A Built-In Guarantee Of Truthfulness: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction for Attempted Murder POCSO | Conviction Cannot Be Sustained Without Conclusive Proof Of Minority - Burden Lies On The Prosecution: Telangana High Court Credible Eyewitness Account, Supported By Forensic Corroboration, Creates An Unassailable Chain Of Proof That Withstands Scrutiny: Punjab and Haryana High Court Jammu & Kashmir High Court Grants Bail to Schizophrenic Mother Accused of Murdering Infant Son

High Court of Andhra Pradesh Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Election Procedures, Reiterates Constitutional Bar on Court Interference

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Court Affirms Election Petition as the Proper Remedy for Electoral Disputes Under Article 329(b) of the Constitution.

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has dismissed a writ petition challenging the validity of election procedures in the 166-Chandragiri Assembly Constituency, reaffirming that electoral disputes must be addressed through election petitions. The petition, filed by Chevireddy Mohith Reddy, alleged electoral malpractices including voter suppression, ballot tampering, and violence. The bench, comprising Justices Subba Reddy Satti and Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, emphasized the constitutional bar on judicial interference in election matters during the process.

Bar on Court Interference:

The High Court reiterated the constitutional provision under Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India, which precludes judicial interference in electoral matters except through election petitions. The bench cited previous Supreme Court rulings to underscore this principle. “No election to either House of Parliament or the House or either House of the Legislature of a State shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided for by or under any law made by the appropriate Legislature,” the court noted.

Electoral Malpractice Allegations:

The petitioner, a candidate from the Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party, claimed that the electoral process in Chandragiri was marred by numerous irregularities. Despite these allegations, the court maintained that such grievances should be resolved through an election petition post-election, not through a writ petition. The court referred to its previous decisions and the established legal framework to support its stance.

The judgment extensively discussed the legal framework governing electoral disputes. It highlighted that any allegations of electoral malpractice must be adjudicated through the specific mechanism provided by election laws. The court cited the landmark case of N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, which establishes that election disputes should be postponed until after the election process is completed to avoid disruption.

Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa remarked, “Article 329(b) of the Constitution unequivocally declares that no election shall be called in question except by an election petition. This constitutional provision acts as a ‘Great Wall of China’ which the courts must respect.”

The High Court’s decision underscores the judiciary’s adherence to the constitutional framework governing electoral disputes. By dismissing the writ petition, the court reaffirmed the necessity for election-related grievances to be addressed through the appropriate legal channels post-election. This ruling is expected to have a significant impact on how future electoral disputes are handled, reinforcing the sanctity of the election process and the specific remedies provided by law.

Date of Decision: 23rd May 2024

Chevireddy Mohith Reddy v. The Election Commission of India & Ors.

Similar News