Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Hritika CB 3 Week 11

    Uploaded by

    Diksha Raj
    5 views1 page
    The case dealt with whether certain election rules violated a voter's fundamental rights. A civil rights organization challenged rules 41(2)(3) and 49-O of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, arguing they violated a voter's secrecy in deciding whether to vote. The Supreme Court upheld a citizen's right to cast a negative vote in elections. It held the rules were invalid because secrecy in voting naturally includes the right not to vote, so it would be arbitrary to extend secrecy to one but not the other.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Hritika CB 3 week 11.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The case dealt with whether certain election rules violated a voter's fundamental rights. A civil rights organization challenged rules 41(2)(3) and 49-O of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, arguing they violated a voter's secrecy in deciding whether to vote. The Supreme Court upheld a citizen's right to cast a negative vote in elections. It held the rules were invalid because secrecy in voting naturally includes the right not to vote, so it would be arbitrary to extend secrecy to one but not the other.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    5 views1 page

    Hritika CB 3 Week 11

    Uploaded by

    Diksha Raj
    The case dealt with whether certain election rules violated a voter's fundamental rights. A civil rights organization challenged rules 41(2)(3) and 49-O of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, arguing they violated a voter's secrecy in deciding whether to vote. The Supreme Court upheld a citizen's right to cast a negative vote in elections. It held the rules were invalid because secrecy in voting naturally includes the right not to vote, so it would be arbitrary to extend secrecy to one but not the other.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    CASE BRIEF

    CASE NAME AND CASE LAW:

    People’s Union for Civil vs. Union of India (Civil Appeal No. 161
    /2004); (Conduct of Election Rules, 1961)

    FACTS:

    The case deals with the inherent right of a voter to be given


    secrecy while voting which includes his decision of not voting.
    The petitioner, a a civil rights NGO, filed a writ challenging the
    constitutional validity of Rules 41(2) & (3) and 49-O of the
    Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 stating that these provisions
    violate the secrecy of voting which is fundamental to the free
    and fair elections

    ISSUE:

    Whether the rules 41(2)(3) and 49 O of conduct election


    rules,1961 violate the fundamental rights of the voter?

    JUDGEMENT:

    The Hon’ble Supreme Court September 27, 2013 by a three-


    judge bench of Justice P Sathasivam, Justice Ranjana Prakash
    Desai and Justice Ranjan Gogoi upheld the constitutional right
    of citizens to cast a negative vote in elections and held that the
    constitutional validity of rules 41(2), (3) and 49-O of the conduct
    of election rules was impugned because since freedom to vote
    naturally includes the freedom not to vote, it would be arbitrary
    to extend secrecy to one and not to other

    You might also like