LANDMARK CASE

Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India

(2006) 7 SCC 1 · Supreme Court of India · Election law

At a glance

Citation: (2006) 7 SCC 1
Court: Supreme Court of India
Area of law: Election law
In one line: Yes. Federalism does not require domicile, and open ballot curbs cross voting.

1 Facts

Amendments removed the domicile requirement and introduced open ballot for Rajya Sabha elections.

2 Issue

Are the amendments valid?

3 What the court decided

Yes. Federalism does not require domicile, and open ballot curbs cross voting.

4 Why it matters

Shaped Rajya Sabha elections.

5 Think about it

Is secrecy essential in all elections?

6 Analyse it yourself

Read the full judgment from an official source or a law database, then brief it in seven steps: facts, issues, arguments, decision, ratio, obiter and significance. Always check the citation before you rely on it.

7 More cases on Election law

Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023) 6 SCC 161
Lily Thomas v. Union of India (Disqualification of Legislators) (2013) 7 SCC 653
Lok Prahari v. Union of India (2018) 4 SCC 699
Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978) 1 SCC 405
N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal AIR 1952 SC 64
People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (NOTA) (2013) 10 SCC 1

All 366 landmark cases · Today's Case of the Day · Weekly quiz

← Krell v. Henry L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India →

A short teaching summary for students. Educational content only, not legal advice.