Full Judgment Text
2026 INSC 110
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.8357 OF 2016
RAM SINGH APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
RAJENDRA PRATAP SINGH @ MOTI SINGH
& ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
NAGARATHNA, J.
This civil appeal arises out of impugned order dated
09.08.2016 passed by the High Court of Allahabad at
Lucknow Bench in Election Petition No.2 of 2012.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the
appellant was declared elected as a Member of the State
Legislative Assembly of Uttar Pradesh from the 249 Patti
Assembly Constituency, District Pratapgarh in 2012.
However, this was challenged by respondent No.1 herein
through Election Petition No.2 of 2012 before the High
Court of Allahabad at Lucknow, on the ground that there
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NEETU SACHDEVA
Date: 2026.02.03
10:56:28 IST
Reason:
was an improper refusal/rejection of 955 postal ballot
papers.
1
3. By impugned order dated 09.08.2016, the High Court
allowed the Election Petition, thereby declaring the
election of the appellant herein as void. In paragraphs 53
to 56 of the impugned order, the High Court observed as
follows:
“53. I have also no hesitation to mention that
during the proceedings of this election petition,
the respondent no.l adopted numberless delaying
tactics by taking number of adjournments; by
moving number of applications under various
provisions of CPC; and by not cooperating for
early disposal of this election petition. Even on
03.03.2016 the court was compelled to pass the
following order: "
(Misc.Application No. Nil of 2016)
The application for adjournment has been moved by
learned counsel for the respondent No.l, which has
been strongly opposed by learned counsel for the
petitioner on the ground that petition is pending
since 2012 and the respondent No.l is delaying the
hearing of the said election petition.
Today, the date is fixed for further cross-
examination- of the petitioner and it has been
clarified on previous dates also that delaying
tactics may not be adopted. There are so many
counsel engaged on behalf of the respondents,
namely, Sri Ashok Kumar Tripathi, Sri Manoj Verma
and others. Needless to say that the proceedings
are also delayed by filing various applications
one-by-one.
The application for adjournment is allowed subject
to payment of Rs. 10,000/- as cost to be deposited
by the respondent No.l in the Library Fund of Oudh
Bar Association on or before the next date of
listing.
2
It is further made clear that if hindrances are
created in the disposal of this petition, then
this Court shall be constrained to pass such
orders, which may result to withhold the salary,
the perquisite as well as the Vidhyak Nidhi and
other facilities of respondent No.l because the
term of present election is likely to end in
March, 2017.
List the case on 29.03.2016, at 2:00 p.m. for
further crossexamination of PW-1."
54. From the discussion aforesaid, I am of the
view that there has been non-compliance of the
provisions of 1951 Act; Rules of 1961; as well as
Hand Book for Returning Officer 2009. Therefore,
in view of the provision of Section 100(1)(d)(iv)
read with provisions of Section 98 of the Act, the
election of the returned candidate is liable to be
declared as void.
55. The petition is allowed with costs. The
Election for Legislative Assembly of Uttar Pradesh
2012 of respondent no.l as Member of Legislative
Assembly from 249 Patti Constituency Assembly
Pratapgarh, District Pratapgarh is declared as
void. As the election of respondent no.l is being
declared void, therefore, respondent no.l must not
be allowed any benefits of this election and also
pension as Member of Legislative Assembly and all
other such benefits, which are admissible to an
Ex-Member of Legislative Assembly. It is clarified
that this period shall confined to General
Elections for Legislative Assembly of Uttar
Pradesh 2012.
56. For non-compliance and violation of the
procedure and Rules, strict action must be taken
by the State Government against Sri Sharda Prasad
Yadav, ADM (Civil Supplies) Kanpur (the then
Returning Officer for 249 Patti Assembly
Constituency, District Pratapgarh) and in future,
he must not be assigned any important duties or
posted on a significant post.”
3
4. Hence, the present appeal. By interim order dated
05.09.2016, this Court admitted the appeal and granted
stay of the impugned order.
5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention
to the contents of paragraphs 53 to 56 of the impugned
order and submitted that having regard to the interim stay
of the impugned order by this Court, the same has not been
given effect to and hence at this point of time if the
merits of the case are not being otherwise gone into, the
appellant herein cannot be denied the benefit of the
interim order of this Court. He, therefore, submitted that
the said portions may be set aside.
7. We have also heard learned counsel for respondent
No.1 on this aspect of the matter and perused interim
order dated 05.09.2016 passed by this Court, which reads
as under:
“Appeal is admitted.
In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
case, there shall be stay of operation and
implementation of the impugned judgment.
4
Mr. C.D. Singh, learned counsel takes notice for
Respondent No.1.
Issue notice to Respondent Nos. 2 to 15.
Dasti service is also permitted.
List after six weeks.”
8. In view of the interim stay of the impugned order
passed by the High Court and the fact that we do not
propose to consider the appeal on merits as the tenure
of office of the elected candidate/appellant herein for
the period 2012-2017 has also lapsed, we think it is in
the interests of justice to set aside the observations
made by the High Court in paragraphs 53 to 56 of the
impugned order.
The Appeal is allowed in part in the aforesaid terms.
…………………………………………………………J.
[B.V. NAGARATHNA]
…………………………………………………………J.
[UJJAL BHUYAN]
NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 29, 2026
5
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.8357 OF 2016
RAM SINGH APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
RAJENDRA PRATAP SINGH @ MOTI SINGH
& ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
NAGARATHNA, J.
This civil appeal arises out of impugned order dated
09.08.2016 passed by the High Court of Allahabad at
Lucknow Bench in Election Petition No.2 of 2012.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the
appellant was declared elected as a Member of the State
Legislative Assembly of Uttar Pradesh from the 249 Patti
Assembly Constituency, District Pratapgarh in 2012.
However, this was challenged by respondent No.1 herein
through Election Petition No.2 of 2012 before the High
Court of Allahabad at Lucknow, on the ground that there
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NEETU SACHDEVA
Date: 2026.02.03
10:56:28 IST
Reason:
was an improper refusal/rejection of 955 postal ballot
papers.
1
3. By impugned order dated 09.08.2016, the High Court
allowed the Election Petition, thereby declaring the
election of the appellant herein as void. In paragraphs 53
to 56 of the impugned order, the High Court observed as
follows:
“53. I have also no hesitation to mention that
during the proceedings of this election petition,
the respondent no.l adopted numberless delaying
tactics by taking number of adjournments; by
moving number of applications under various
provisions of CPC; and by not cooperating for
early disposal of this election petition. Even on
03.03.2016 the court was compelled to pass the
following order: "
(Misc.Application No. Nil of 2016)
The application for adjournment has been moved by
learned counsel for the respondent No.l, which has
been strongly opposed by learned counsel for the
petitioner on the ground that petition is pending
since 2012 and the respondent No.l is delaying the
hearing of the said election petition.
Today, the date is fixed for further cross-
examination- of the petitioner and it has been
clarified on previous dates also that delaying
tactics may not be adopted. There are so many
counsel engaged on behalf of the respondents,
namely, Sri Ashok Kumar Tripathi, Sri Manoj Verma
and others. Needless to say that the proceedings
are also delayed by filing various applications
one-by-one.
The application for adjournment is allowed subject
to payment of Rs. 10,000/- as cost to be deposited
by the respondent No.l in the Library Fund of Oudh
Bar Association on or before the next date of
listing.
2
It is further made clear that if hindrances are
created in the disposal of this petition, then
this Court shall be constrained to pass such
orders, which may result to withhold the salary,
the perquisite as well as the Vidhyak Nidhi and
other facilities of respondent No.l because the
term of present election is likely to end in
March, 2017.
List the case on 29.03.2016, at 2:00 p.m. for
further crossexamination of PW-1."
54. From the discussion aforesaid, I am of the
view that there has been non-compliance of the
provisions of 1951 Act; Rules of 1961; as well as
Hand Book for Returning Officer 2009. Therefore,
in view of the provision of Section 100(1)(d)(iv)
read with provisions of Section 98 of the Act, the
election of the returned candidate is liable to be
declared as void.
55. The petition is allowed with costs. The
Election for Legislative Assembly of Uttar Pradesh
2012 of respondent no.l as Member of Legislative
Assembly from 249 Patti Constituency Assembly
Pratapgarh, District Pratapgarh is declared as
void. As the election of respondent no.l is being
declared void, therefore, respondent no.l must not
be allowed any benefits of this election and also
pension as Member of Legislative Assembly and all
other such benefits, which are admissible to an
Ex-Member of Legislative Assembly. It is clarified
that this period shall confined to General
Elections for Legislative Assembly of Uttar
Pradesh 2012.
56. For non-compliance and violation of the
procedure and Rules, strict action must be taken
by the State Government against Sri Sharda Prasad
Yadav, ADM (Civil Supplies) Kanpur (the then
Returning Officer for 249 Patti Assembly
Constituency, District Pratapgarh) and in future,
he must not be assigned any important duties or
posted on a significant post.”
3
4. Hence, the present appeal. By interim order dated
05.09.2016, this Court admitted the appeal and granted
stay of the impugned order.
5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention
to the contents of paragraphs 53 to 56 of the impugned
order and submitted that having regard to the interim stay
of the impugned order by this Court, the same has not been
given effect to and hence at this point of time if the
merits of the case are not being otherwise gone into, the
appellant herein cannot be denied the benefit of the
interim order of this Court. He, therefore, submitted that
the said portions may be set aside.
7. We have also heard learned counsel for respondent
No.1 on this aspect of the matter and perused interim
order dated 05.09.2016 passed by this Court, which reads
as under:
“Appeal is admitted.
In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
case, there shall be stay of operation and
implementation of the impugned judgment.
4
Mr. C.D. Singh, learned counsel takes notice for
Respondent No.1.
Issue notice to Respondent Nos. 2 to 15.
Dasti service is also permitted.
List after six weeks.”
8. In view of the interim stay of the impugned order
passed by the High Court and the fact that we do not
propose to consider the appeal on merits as the tenure
of office of the elected candidate/appellant herein for
the period 2012-2017 has also lapsed, we think it is in
the interests of justice to set aside the observations
made by the High Court in paragraphs 53 to 56 of the
impugned order.
The Appeal is allowed in part in the aforesaid terms.
…………………………………………………………J.
[B.V. NAGARATHNA]
…………………………………………………………J.
[UJJAL BHUYAN]
NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 29, 2026
5