LexPUKHREM SHARATCHANDRA SINGH versus MAIREMBAM PRITHVIRAJ@ PRITHIBIRAJ SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 591 PUKHREM SHARATCHANDRA SINGH v. MAIREMBAM PRITHVIRAJ@ PRITHIBIRAJ SINGH (Civil Appeal No.8063 of 2015) OCTOBER 01, 2015 [DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] A B Representation of the People Act, 1951: s.86(7) - Election petition - Delay in disposal of election petition - C Role of Election Tribunal - Respondent-elected candidate filed written statement two years after the main election petition - Adjournment was sought by respondent from time to time - Appeal by election petitioner challenging the manner in which the trial was conducted an__d the dilatory 0 tactics adopted by the respondent to delay the hearing of the election petition - Held: An election petition has to be decided in quite promptitude as there is an obligation cast upon the Court to dispose of the same within a period of six months·- As per s. 86(7) of the Act, the Court has to E endeavour to dispose of an election petition as expeditiously as possible and not to allow the parties to take resort to unnecessary adjournments or file vexatious applications - In the case at hand, the elected candidate has been taking time at his own pleasure and leisure and F filing applications as he desired giving vent to his whim and fancy and the Court has granted adjournment in an extremely liberal manner - This kind of attitude has to be curbed from all angles because law does not countenance .~ G Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: The fundamental purpose for expeditious disposal of an election petition is to sustain the purity H 591 592 SUPREME COURT REPORT'S [2015) 10 S.C.R. A of parliamentary democracy. A voter casts his vote as a responsible citizen to choose the masters for governing the country. That being the trust of the electorate in an elected candidate, when he faces an assail to his election, it should be his sanguine effort B to become free from the assail in the election petition and work with attainment and not take shelter seeking adjournments with the elated hope that he can be triumphant in the contest by passage of time. This kind of attitude has to be curbed from all angles because C law does not countenance it. In this case the election petitioner has also filed an application for early determination of the preliminary objection. The respondent, the elected candidate, has filed series of 0 applications. The election petition pending before the High Court has to be decided with extreme alertness and in quite promptitude. As the court has no.t framed issues, it shall proceed to frame issues. Thereafter, the evidence shall commence and the court shall, regard E being had to the statutory command and the norms in a democratic polity, dispose of the election petition by end of February 2016. [Paras 16, 19 and 20l [601-F; 603-A-F] F G H "F Satya Narain v. Dhuja Ram 1974 (3) SCR 20: (1974) 4 SCC 237;P. Na/la Thampy Thera.v. B.L. Shanker1984SCR687: (1984) Supp. SCC 631; F.A. Sapa v. Singora 1991 (2) SCR 752: (1991) 3 SCC 375; Rameshwar Prasad and others v. Union of India and another 2006 (1) SCR 562: (2006) 2 SCC 1; Manoj Narula v. Union of India (2014) 9 SCC 1; Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner1978 (2) SCR ~72: (1978) 1 SCC 405 - relied on. · PUKHREM SHARATCHANDRASINGH v. MAIREMBAM 593 PRITHVIRAJ@ PRITHIBIRAJ SINGH Case Law Reference A 1974 (3) SCR 20 relied on. Para 11 1984 SCR 687 relied on. Para 12 1991 (2) SCR 752 relied on. Para 13 B 2006 (1) SCR 562 relied on. Para 16 (2014) 9 sec 1 relied on. Para 17 1978 (2) SCR 272 relied on. Para 18 c CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8063 of 2015 From the Judgment and Order dated 25.03.2015 of the o High Court of Manipur at Imphal in Election Petition No. 1 of 2012. N. Kumarjit, Lenin Hijam, S. Gowthaman for the Appellant. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by E DIPAK MISRA, J. 1. What ordinarily would have entailed dismissal of the special leave petition treating it with loathe, regard being had to the nature of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Misc. Case (E.P) No. 1 of 2012 in F Election Petition No. 1 of 2012 as he had only adjourned the matter, but the chronology of events, the ultimate consequence that would emerge by efflux of time, the command of the provision contained in Section 86(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for brevity, "the Act"), every conceivable G stand adopted in a dexterou
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.