A. C. Jose v. Sivan Pillai
E545234
A. C. Jose v. Sivan Pillai is a landmark Supreme Court of India judgment that clarified the scope of the Election Commission’s powers in conducting elections under the Indian Constitution.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| A. C. Jose v. Sivan Pillai canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T5779857 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: A. C. Jose v. Sivan Pillai Context triple: [Article 324 of the Constitution of India, citedIn, A. C. Jose v. Sivan Pillai]
-
A.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala is a landmark 1973 Supreme Court of India judgment that established the basic structure doctrine, limiting Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
-
B.
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India is a landmark 2018 Supreme Court of India judgment that decriminalized consensual same-sex relations by reading down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and affirming constitutional protections for LGBTQ+ rights.
-
C.
Joseph Shine v. Union of India
Joseph Shine v. Union of India is a landmark 2018 Supreme Court of India judgment that decriminalized adultery by striking down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code as unconstitutional and discriminatory.
-
D.
Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala
Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala is a landmark 2018 Supreme Court of India judgment that struck down the ban on women of menstruating age entering the Sabarimala temple as unconstitutional and discriminatory.
-
E.
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India is a landmark Supreme Court of India case that examined environmental, displacement, and development issues surrounding large dam construction on the Narmada River.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: A. C. Jose v. Sivan Pillai Target entity description: A. C. Jose v. Sivan Pillai is a landmark Supreme Court of India judgment that clarified the scope of the Election Commission’s powers in conducting elections under the Indian Constitution.
-
A.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala is a landmark 1973 Supreme Court of India judgment that established the basic structure doctrine, limiting Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
-
B.
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India is a landmark 2018 Supreme Court of India judgment that decriminalized consensual same-sex relations by reading down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and affirming constitutional protections for LGBTQ+ rights.
-
C.
Joseph Shine v. Union of India
Joseph Shine v. Union of India is a landmark 2018 Supreme Court of India judgment that decriminalized adultery by striking down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code as unconstitutional and discriminatory.
-
D.
Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala
Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala is a landmark 2018 Supreme Court of India judgment that struck down the ban on women of menstruating age entering the Sabarimala temple as unconstitutional and discriminatory.
-
E.
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India is a landmark Supreme Court of India case that examined environmental, displacement, and development issues surrounding large dam construction on the Narmada River.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (35)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
Indian election law case
ⓘ
Supreme Court of India judgment ⓘ landmark judgment ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
constitutional law
ⓘ
election law ⓘ |
| citationStatus | leading case on Article 324 powers ⓘ |
| concerns |
conduct of elections
ⓘ
interpretation of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 ⓘ powers of the Election Commission of India ⓘ scope of Article 324 of the Constitution of India ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted | Article 324 of the Constitution of India NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| country | India ⓘ |
| court | Supreme Court of India NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| governingConstitution | Constitution of India NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| holding |
Election Commission of India cannot act in violation of express statutory provisions while exercising its powers
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Election Commission’s plenary powers under Article 324 are meant to supplement, not supplant, the law made by Parliament ⓘ where the law is silent, the Election Commission may act to fill the gaps to ensure free and fair elections ⓘ |
| impact |
guided later Supreme Court decisions on the Election Commission’s authority
ⓘ
influenced administrative practice of the Election Commission of India ⓘ |
| importance |
clarified the scope and limits of the Election Commission’s powers in India
ⓘ
frequently cited precedent in Indian election law cases ⓘ |
| jurisdiction | India NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| languageOfProceedings | English ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
extent of plenary powers of the Election Commission of India
ⓘ
relationship between constitutional powers and statutory election law ⓘ whether Election Commission can override statutory provisions while conducting elections ⓘ |
| legalSystem | common law ⓘ |
| party |
A. C. Jose
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Sivan Pillai NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| principleEstablished |
Election Commission has residuary powers to ensure free and fair elections when statute is silent
ⓘ
constitutional powers of the Election Commission are subject to existing statutory provisions ⓘ primacy of parliamentary legislation in regulating elections subject to the Constitution ⓘ |
| relatedInstitution | Election Commission of India NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| statuteInterpreted | Representation of the People Act, 1951 NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| subjectMatter | validity of actions taken by the Election Commission during an election ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: A. C. Jose v. Sivan Pillai Description of subject: A. C. Jose v. Sivan Pillai is a landmark Supreme Court of India judgment that clarified the scope of the Election Commission’s powers in conducting elections under the Indian Constitution.
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.