Raj Narain vs. Indira Gandhi
Share
Supreme Court of India
PETITIONER:INDIRA NEHRU GANDHI (SMT.) Vs.
RESPONDENT:RAJ NARAIN & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT24/06/1975
BENCH:KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
CITATION: 1975 AIR 1590 1975 SCC (2) 159
ACT:
Representation of the People Act, 1951, S.116B(2)-Stay of election judgment and order-Judge-Power-Dimensions of Judge power to stay-Difference between executive discretion and judicial discretion, explained-Cognisability of non-legal arguments in such cases-Equity and ground of “unclean hands”-Courts cannot go into the merits of the case at the stage of granting stay-Balance of convenience, public justice etc. are relevant considerations–Precedents of pre-
1966 Election law are of no value to post-1966 cases of conditional stay–Nature of “type design’ stay orders and their value-Legal effect of a stay order in general and in particular, in the instant case, as a Minister or Prime
Minister-Power to ask for a review of provisional orders.
HEADNOTE:
In the General Parliamentary Elections of 1971, the appellant was declared as a successful candidate from the
Rae Bareli Constituency in Uttar Pradesh. She won the election by a margin of 1,11,810 votes over her nearest rival Sri Rai Narain. Sri Raj Narain, respondent No. 1, who was sponsored by the Samyukta Socialist Party filed an election petition u/s 80 r/w S.100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 to challenge the election of the successful candidate. A learned single judge of the
Allahabad High Court upheld the challenge on two grounds rejecting the other grounds of challenge. The learned judge also granted an absolute 20 days’ stay. The appellant moved this Court, challenging the ‘unseating’ verdict against her by the High Court. The appellant also sought “absolute stay” of the judgment and order under appeal. Respondent
No. 1 filed cross-appeals against the said
Supreme Court of India
PETITIONER:INDIRA NEHRU GANDHI (SMT.) Vs.
RESPONDENT:RAJ NARAIN & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT24/06/1975
BENCH:KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
CITATION: 1975 AIR 1590 1975 SCC (2) 159
ACT:
Representation of the People Act, 1951, S.116B(2)-Stay of election judgment and order-Judge-Power-Dimensions of Judge power to stay-Difference between executive discretion and judicial discretion, explained-Cognisability of non-legal arguments in such cases-Equity and ground of “unclean hands”-Courts cannot go into the merits of the case at the stage of granting stay-Balance of convenience, public justice etc. are relevant considerations–Precedents of pre-
1966 Election law are of no value to post-1966 cases of conditional stay–Nature of “type design’ stay orders and their value-Legal effect of a stay order in general and in particular, in the instant case, as a Minister or Prime
Minister-Power to ask for a review of provisional orders.
HEADNOTE:
In the General Parliamentary Elections of 1971, the appellant was declared as a successful candidate from the
Rae Bareli Constituency in Uttar Pradesh. She won the election by a margin of 1,11,810 votes over her nearest rival Sri Rai Narain. Sri Raj Narain, respondent No. 1, who was sponsored by the Samyukta Socialist Party filed an election petition u/s 80 r/w S.100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 to challenge the election of the successful candidate. A learned single judge of the
Allahabad High Court upheld the challenge on two grounds rejecting the other grounds of challenge. The learned judge also granted an absolute 20 days’ stay. The appellant moved this Court, challenging the ‘unseating’ verdict against her by the High Court. The appellant also sought “absolute stay” of the judgment and order under appeal. Respondent
No. 1 filed cross-appeals against the said