Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA versus TELANGANA RASTRA SAMITHI & ANR.

Decided
8 December 2010
Judges listed
ALTAMAS KABIR (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[2010] 14 S.C.R. 496 · 2010 INSC 862

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

On 3rd December, 2010, when judgment had been delivered in the Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C)No.20590 of 2010, it had been brought to our notice by Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned counsel for the Election Commission of India, that elections to the 28-Vemulawada and 29-Sircilla Assembly Constituencies in the State of Andhra Pradash had already been held on 27th July, 2010. In fact, at the time when notice was issued on the Special Leave Petition on 22nd July, 2010, it had been brought to our notice that the elections to the said two Constituencies had already been notified and were scheduled to be held on 27th July, 2010.

p. 497, margin E

2

Accordingly, while issuing notice, we had confined the same only to the question relating to the interpretation of Section 151-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, with regard to the holding of elections in a vacancy within six months from the date of such vacancy where an election petition is pending. We had already made it clear that the pendency of the Special Leave Petition would not affect the elections, which had already been notified and were scheduled to be held on 27th July, 2010. The Civil Appeal was, therefore, heard only on the question of interpretation of Section 151-A of the aforesaid Act.

pp. 497–498, margin G

3

It is, therefore, clarified that although, we had allowed and set aside the order of the High Court on account of the interpretation of Section 151-A of the 1951 Act, read with Article 190(3)(b) of the Constitution, the same will not affect the byeelections already held in respect of the two above-mentioned Assembly Constituencies held on 27th July, 2010. K.K.T. Matter disposed of.

p. 498, margin B