Case Note & Summary
The case involved a statutory appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People’s Act, 1951, challenging the Gauhati High Court's order that declared the appellant's election void. The appellant, Markio Tado, contested the election for the 20-Tali (ST) constituency against Takam Sorang, who alleged corrupt practices including booth capturing. The election took place in October 2009, with Tado winning by a margin of 2713 votes. Sorang filed an election petition claiming that booth capturing occurred at several polling stations, which was contested by Tado. The High Court initially allowed the petition, leading to the appeal. The Supreme Court analyzed the evidence presented, noting that the allegations of booth capturing were not supported by direct evidence. The court emphasized that the petition was based solely on booth capturing, while the respondent attempted to introduce claims of impersonation and double voting, which were not part of the original petition. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by allowing the introduction of new grounds and evidence that were not adequately substantiated. Ultimately, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, dismissing the election petition and reinforcing the importance of judicial discipline and adherence to established legal principles.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Booth Capturing - Definition and Evidence - Representation of the People’s Act, 1951, Section 123(8), 100(1)(d)(iii) - The court held that allegations of booth capturing were not substantiated by evidence, and the petition was not filed on the ground of improper reception of votes. The learned judge's decision to declare the election void was flawed as it ignored the established legal principles regarding booth capturing and improper reception of votes (Paras 23-26).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the election of the appellant was void due to alleged corrupt practices including booth capturing and impersonation.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order dated 12.11.2012, and dismissed the election petition filed by the respondent. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.
Law Points
- Election law
- booth capturing
- impersonation
- double voting
- judicial discipline
- statutory appeal
