Civil Appeal No. 467 of 2015
25. We therefore request the Hon’ble Chief Justice to constitute a bench, preferably the Full Court, since every judge of this Court has heard election disputes and acquired invaluable knowledge which will undoubtedly better help to decide the following questions of law, which have arisen in this appeal, and which will also arise in other cases:
Q.1. Does every nondisclosure or misdeclaration in the Nomination Form result in the disqualification of a candidate or only those whereby one has circumvented some inherent legal disability to participate in an election?
Q.2. If a petition does not disclose the particular facts, on the basis of which disqualification is sought, can these be considered when subsequently disclosed in the affidavit-in-evidence of the petitioner or which may otherwise be discovered during the hearing before the tribunal/court?
Q.3. Does Article 225 of the Constitution exclude the application of Article 184(3) of the Constitution to election disputes?
Q.4. If the answer to the foregoing question is in the negative, then is an election dispute regarding an individual’s qualification or disqualification a matter of “public importance” which requires the “enforcement” of a Fundamental Right and if so can it be determined under Article 184(3) of the Constitution?
Q.5. If the answer to the foregoing question is in the affirmative, are the procedural and evidentiary rules governing election petitions and appeals under the ROPA the same as those governing petitions under Article 184(3) of the Constitution?
Q.6. Does the “court of law” mentioned in Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution include the Supreme Court when exercising jurisdiction under Article 184 (3)?
Q.7. If a candidate is disqualified on account of nondisclosure or misdeclaration does such disqualification subsist only till the next elections or is it permanent?
25. We therefore request the Hon’ble Chief Justice to constitute a bench, preferably the Full Court, since every judge of this Court has heard election disputes and acquired invaluable knowledge which will undoubtedly better help to decide the following questions of law, which have arisen in this appeal, and which will also arise in other cases:
Q.1. Does every nondisclosure or misdeclaration in the Nomination Form result in the disqualification of a candidate or only those whereby one has circumvented some inherent legal disability to participate in an election?
Q.2. If a petition does not disclose the particular facts, on the basis of which disqualification is sought, can these be considered when subsequently disclosed in the affidavit-in-evidence of the petitioner or which may otherwise be discovered during the hearing before the tribunal/court?
Q.3. Does Article 225 of the Constitution exclude the application of Article 184(3) of the Constitution to election disputes?
Q.4. If the answer to the foregoing question is in the negative, then is an election dispute regarding an individual’s qualification or disqualification a matter of “public importance” which requires the “enforcement” of a Fundamental Right and if so can it be determined under Article 184(3) of the Constitution?
Q.5. If the answer to the foregoing question is in the affirmative, are the procedural and evidentiary rules governing election petitions and appeals under the ROPA the same as those governing petitions under Article 184(3) of the Constitution?
Q.6. Does the “court of law” mentioned in Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution include the Supreme Court when exercising jurisdiction under Article 184 (3)?
Q.7. If a candidate is disqualified on account of nondisclosure or misdeclaration does such disqualification subsist only till the next elections or is it permanent?
No comments:
Post a Comment