Forgot password
New User/ Regiser
⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (7) TMI 740 - SUPREME COURT
Interpretation of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - election of the present Appellant, namely, Shri Arjun Panditrao Khotkar to the Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly for the term commencing November, 2014 - presentation of the nomination papers - entirety of the case before the High Court had revolved around four sets of nomination papers that had been filed by the RC. It was the case of the present Respondents that each set of nomination papers suffered from defects of a substantial nature and that, therefore, all four sets of nomination papers, having been improperly accepted by the Returning Officer of the Election Commission, one Smt. Mutha, (RO), the election of the RC be declared void.
HELD THAT:- The major jurisdictions of the world have come to terms with the change of times and the development of technology and fine-tuned their legislations. Therefore, it is the need of the hour that there is a relook at Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, introduced 20 years ago, by Act 21 of 2000, and which has created a huge judicial turmoil, with the law swinging from one extreme to the other in the past 15 years from STATE (NCT. OF DELHI) VERSUS NAVJOT SANDHU @ AFSAN GURU [2005 (8) TMI 663 - SUPREME COURT] to ANVAR P.V VERSUS P.K. BASHEER AND OTHERS [2014 (9) TMI 1007 - SUPREME COURT] to Tomaso Bruno [2015 (1) TMI 1307 - SUPREME COURT] to SONU @ AMAR VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA [2017 (7) TMI 1366 - SUPREME COURT] to Shafhi Mohammad [2018 (1) TMI 1402 - SUPREME COURT].
Appeals dismissed.