Previous 3 / 7 Next

Machine Translated by Google 4. Narprasad Adhikari, who got 388 votes less than me and got 306 votes less than me, is an unauthorized body election officer and P.G.A. Case no. Local Panchayat Election Guidelines, 2043 that if a complaint is brought to the concerned election officer who has filed a complaint under the Election Crimes and Punishment Act, 2024, the concerned election officer shall register the complaint and send all such complaints to the special election court at the relevant level. It is clearly mentioned in section 87 of (1) and sub-section 2 of section 18 of Election Crimes and Punishment Act, 2024. There is no reason to file a complaint against the Election Officer regarding the fact that the complaint should be dismissed because there is no opposition to the Election Officer. Because the polling officers appointed in accordance with section 69 of the Local Election Guidelines, 2043 have already been delegated authority in accordance with section 70. Therefore, since the petitioner has violated the constitutional rights of the respondent, the interim order as per the petition should not be issued, but the petition should be dismissed and the local panchayat election officer and P.G.A. written answer to 5. Under the Elections (Crimes and Punishment) Act, 2024, the concerned person who complains about any election must file a complaint with the relevant election officer within 35 days of the publication of the election results, as this election has been sent to the special court by the election officer for action in accordance with the law. is According to the same Act, subsection 1, 2 of Section 14, there is no provision in the said Act that claims cannot be taken simultaneously. Since the petitioner has won the election contest by concealing the provisions of the Act and the matter of falsification of age under (2) (b) of Section 14(1) of the Elections (Crimes and Punishments) Act, 2024 is also included in the crime and Since the main claim of the complaint is related to age falsification, the plea that both sub-sections 1 and 2 cannot be claimed at the same time is baseless. 045.5.1 of the district office of Panchthar that the law stipulates that the candidate for the vice president must be 21 years of age, the petitioner faked his age and won the election. the same

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Chaturman Beda vs Election Special Court and others

Judgment

Question Presented: Whether the ineligibility of a winning candidate due to his age should result in declaring the runner-up candidate as the winner of the election or invalidating the entire election result.

Alleged Acts: Following a results petition against the winning candidate by an opponent candidate, a Special Election Court found that the respondent was ineligible to run in the election due to his age. The Special Election Court declared the runner-up candidate as the winner of the election. The respondent (winning candidate) claimed that the Court did not impose the proper remedy and should have instead invalidated the election results and ordered a rerun.

Procedural history: Following the election results petition by the Special Election Court, the respondent filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court to declare the decision of Special Election Court null and void. When filing his candidacy, the winning candidate lied about his age, claiming to be 21 years old when he was only 19. He won the election and became Deputy Pradhan Pancha (Deputy Head of the Panchayat, or the village council). His opponent filed a result petition with the Special Election Court to invalidate the election under Section 14(1)(6)(g) of the Election Offence and Punishment Act (1967). The Special Election Court did not invalidate the entire election but cancelled the candidacy of the winning candidate and declared the opposition candidate as the winner of the election because he received the second highest number of votes. The winning candidate alleged that the Special Election Court’s decision to declare his opponent the winner of the election as improper under Sections 14(1)(a)(b) and 14(2)(a) of the Election Offence and Punishment Act (1967) and petitioned for issuance of writ of certiorari and other necessary orders.

Summary: The Court determined that the main issue in this case is not the validity of the entire election results, but merely the invalidation of the results in the Deputy Pradhan Pancha election, since the petitioner had lied about his age while filing for candidacy in violation of Section 14(1) of the Election Offence and Punishment Act (1967). If an offence under Section 14(2)(a)(b) of the Act is proven, a hearing officer may annul the election of the candidate who committed the offence and decide that the other person has been duly elected to the position. The Court held that the Special Election Court properly annulled the election of the fraudulent candidate and declared the winner as the candidate who got the second highest number of votes.

Conclusion: The Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the decision of the Special Election Court, on the grounds that the main legal issue concerns the candidate’s ineligibility due to age rather than the invalidation of the entire election and declared the candidate who acquired the second highest number of votes the winner.

Legal Issue(s)

Candidate Registration
Disputing Results
Electoral Integrity

Applicable Law(s): Election Offence and Punishment Act, 1967; Local Level Panchayat Directive, 1986

Region: Asia-Pacific

Country: Nepal

Language of Decision

Nepali

Court: Supreme Court

Election Type: Local

Date of decision: Feb 14, 1990

Geolocation

Latitude: 28.289870471423562

Longitude: 83.99138314546404

: Geolocation

Primary Documents

Chaturman Beda vs Election Special Court and others (English).pdf
english
Download View
Chaturman Beda vs Election Special Court and others (Nepali).pdf
other
Download View