**Mohd. Akram Ansari challenged the 2003 Delhi Legislative Assembly election of Haroon Yusuf (respondent), alleging disqualification on the ground that Yusuf held an office of profit as Chairman of the Delhi Wakf Board at the time of election. The High Court dismissed the election petition. In appeal, the Supreme Court held that the subsequent insertion of Section 31-A in the Wakf Act, 1995 by the Wakf (Delhi Amendment) Act, 2006, which provides that the Chairman of the Delhi Wakf Board shall not be deemed to hold an office of profit and shall be deemed never to have been disqualified, is retrospective in nature due to the deeming clause. Even if disqualification existed in 2003, the legal fiction created by the amendment deems no disqualification to have occurred. The Court also clarified that there is a rebuttable presumption that the High Court dealt with all points actually pressed before it, and unaddressed points in the judgment are presumed not to have been pressed. The appeals were dismissed upholding the election of Haroon Yusuf.**
- A statutory provision containing the words “and shall be deemed never to have been disqualified” creates a retrospective legal fiction that must be given full effect, even if the amending Act does not expressly declare it to be retrospective: Mohd. Akram Ansari v. Chief Election Officer, (2008) 2 SCC 95, Paras 6, 7.
- There is a rebuttable presumption in law that a judge deals with all points actually pressed before him; if a point is not dealt with in the judgment, it is presumed not to have been pressed unless rebutted by approaching the same court: Mohd. Akram Ansari v. Chief Election Officer, (2008) 2 SCC 95, Para 10.
Mohd. Akram Ansari Vs Chief Election Officer and Others (with connected appeal Naved Yar Khan v. Haroon Yusuf and Another), Order date: 4 December 2007, Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 4981 of 2006 with Civil Appeal No. 5828 of 2006, Neutral Citation: (2008) 2 SCC 95, Name of court: Supreme Court of India, Name of Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Mathur and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju.
[Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]
[Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi]
