SC refuses to entertain Baghel's plea against nephew's election petition
A Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi dismissed the petition as withdrawn while granting Baghel liberty to approach the High Court-cum-Election Tribunal to raise the issue of maintainability as a preliminary issue.
'If such an application is filed, the High Court is requested to decide it after giving an opportunity of being heard to the other side and before proceeding on merits.
Observations made in the said order shall have no bearing on the application sought to be moved,' the Bench clarified.
Baghel had approached the apex court against the Chhattisgarh High Court's dismissal of his application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of Vijay Baghel's election petition.
Appearing for Baghel, Senior Advocate Vivek Tankha, along with Advocate Sumeer Sodhi, argued that breach of silence period norms does not amount to 'corrupt practice' under election law and hence, the election petition was not maintainable.
However, the Bench suggested that the issue be raised before the High Court-cum-Election Tribunal.
In the 2023 Chhattisgarh Assembly elections, Bhupesh Baghel (Indian National Congress) and Vijay Baghel (Bharatiya Janata Party) contested against each other from the Patan constituency, with Bhupesh Baghel emerging victorious.
Subsequently, Vijay Baghel filed an election petition alleging corrupt practices, including violation of the 48-hour silence period mandated under Section 126 of the Representation of the People Act.
It was claimed that Bhupesh Baghel organised a rally or roadshow during the silence period, where slogans were raised in his favour. This was allegedly video-graphed and photographed by Vijay Baghel's election agent.
In his defence, Bhupesh Baghel contended that the election petition was vague and did not disclose any triable cause of action.
Upon dismissal of his application by the High Court, he approached the Supreme Court, which today declined to interfere. UNI SNG SSP
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
36 minutes ago
- India Today
Most Americans still support legal abortion 3 years after Roe overturned, poll shows
Three years after the Supreme Court opened the door to state abortion bans, most U.S. adults say abortion should be legal — views that look similar to before the landmark new findings from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll show that about two-thirds of U.S. adults think abortion should be legal in all or most half believe abortion should be available in their state if someone does not want to be pregnant for any level of support for abortion is down slightly from what an AP-NORC poll showed last year, when it seemed that support for legal abortion might be rising. LAWS AND OPINIONS CHANGED AFTER ROE WAS OVERTURNEDThe June 2022 Supreme Court ruling overturned Roe v. Wade and opened the door to state bans on abortion led to major policy changes. Most states have either moved to protect abortion access or restrict it. Twelve are now enforcing bans on abortion at every stage of pregnancy, and four more do so after about six weeks' gestation, which is often before women realise they're the aftermath of the ruling, AP-NORC polling suggested that support for legal abortion access might be year, an AP-NORC poll conducted in June found that 7 in 10 US adults said it should be available in all or most cases, up slightly from 65 per cent in May 2022, just before the decision that overruled the constitutional right to abortion, and 57 per cent in June new poll is closer to Americans' views before the Supreme Court ruled. Now, 64% of adults support legal abortion in most or all cases. More than half the adults in states with the most stringent bans are in that about half now say abortion should be available in their state when someone doesn't want to continue their pregnancy for any reason — about the same as in June 2021 but down from about 6 in 10 who said that in in the strictest states are just as likely as others to say abortion should be available in their state to women who want to end pregnancies for any support abortion access far more than Republicans do. Support for legal abortion has dropped slightly among members of both parties since June 2024, but nearly 9 in 10 Democrats and roughly 4 in 10 Republicans say abortion should be legal in at least most what's happened in the aftermath of the ruling has strengthened the abortion rights position of Wilaysha White, a 25-year-old Ohio mom. She has some regrets about the abortion she had when she was homeless.'I don't think you should be able to get an abortion anytime,' said White, who calls herself a 'semi-Republican.' But she said that hearing about situations — including when a Georgia woman was arrested after a miscarriage and initially charged with concealing a death — is a bigger concern.'Seeing women being sick and life or death, they're not being put first — that's just scary,' she said. 'I'd rather have it be legal across the board than have that.'Julie Reynolds' strong anti-abortion stance has been cemented for decades and hasn't shifted since Roe was overturned. 'It's a moral issue,' said the 66-year-old Arizona woman, who works part time as a bank said her view is shaped partly by having obtained an abortion herself when she was in her 20s. 'I would not want a woman to go through that,' she said. 'I live with that every day. I took a life.'- EndsMust Watch
India Today
38 minutes ago
- India Today
PM Modi hails India-UK trade deal as historic, Rahul vs EC over poll roll revision, more
The landmark free trade agreement is signed between the United Kingdom and India as part of the Prime Minister's visit to Great Britain. Prime Minister Modi hailed the agreement as historic, while the British Prime Minister said it's Britain's biggest trade deal since Brexit. The agreement aims to boost trade, while also addressing issues like Khalistani extremism and the extradition of economic offenders, including Vijay Mallya and Nirav Modi. And the Election Commission versus Rahul Gandhi showdown has escalated. This after Rahul Gandhi alleged the poll body is in a bid to steal votes. The poll panel responded by asking Rahul to refrain from making baseless allegations and asked him to wait for the Supreme Court verdict next week.
Time of India
42 minutes ago
- Time of India
Supreme Court to hear Yashwant Varma's petition on Monday
NEW DELHI: A Supreme Court bench led by Justice Dipankar Datta will hear on Monday Justice Yashwant Varma's petition challenging the in-house inquiry report accusing him of being complicit in sacks of cash found at his official residence and then CJI Sanjiv Khanna's decision to send the report to the President and the PM with the recommendation for his removal. Justice Varma will be represented by a battery of senior advocates - Kapil Sibal , Mukul Rohatgi, Rakesh Dwivedi, Siddharth Luthra and Siddharth Aggarwal. Since most senior SC judges were part of the collegium and in some way or the other acquainted with the administrative proceedings relating to Justice Varma, who was repatriated to Allahabad HC from Delhi after the discovery of cash at his residence, CJI Gavai has assigned hearing of the petition to a bench led by Justice Datta. When then CJI Khanna was heading the collegium, Justices Gavai, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath were part of it. Justice Datta is 10th in seniority among Supreme Court judges. CJI Gavai had on Wednesday recused from hearing Justice Varma's petition on the ground that he was part of the administrative process relating to transfer of the judge from Delhi HC to his parent Allahabad HC. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal had requested a bench led by CJI Gavai on Wednesday for an urgent hearing on Justice Varma's petition even as the Lok Sabha speaker commenced proceedings relating to a notice for removal of the judge signed by more than 150 MPs. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like American Investor Warren Buffett Recommends: 5 Books For Turning Your Life Around Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo Sibal had told the CJI that Justice Varma's petition raised some important constitutional questions relating to the in-house report and the recommendation for his removal. In his petition, Justice Varma has questioned why Delhi Police and Delhi Fire Service personnel, who discovered the cash, did not seize it or prepare a 'panchnama' (statement of witnesses in writing corroborating the discovery of cash), which alone could have been admissible evidence.
