Introduction
Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India mandates that no election to either House of Parliament or a State Legislature shall be called into question except by an election petition presented in accordance with statutory law. The Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951, establishes the comprehensive legal framework governing election petitions, vesting trial jurisdiction in the High Courts to resolve electoral disputes and preserve democratic integrity.
Procedure to Decide Election Disputes under RPA, 1951
Part VI of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, sets forth the procedure for adjudicating disputes regarding parliamentary and legislative assembly elections:
- Jurisdiction (Section 80A): Original jurisdiction to try election petitions is vested solely in the High Court of the State in which the election took place, exercisable by a single judge assigned by the Chief Justice.
- Filing Requirements (Section 81): An election petition must be presented by any candidate or an elector within 45 days from the date of the declaration of the election results.
- Trial Procedure (Section 86 and 87): The trial is conducted in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Section 86(7) stipulates that the High Court shall endeavor to conclude the trial within six months from the date of petition presentation.
Grounds for Declaring an Election Void (Section 100)
Under Section 100(1) of the RPA, 1951, the High Court can declare the election of a returned candidate void on the following specific grounds:
- Lack of Qualification or Disqualification: On the date of the election, the candidate was not qualified or was disqualified to fill the seat under the Constitution or the RPA, 1951.
- Commission of Corrupt Practices: A corrupt practice enumerated under Section 123 has been committed by the candidate, their election agent, or any other person with their consent. For instance, in Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975), an election was set aside due to the procurement of assistance from government officials, which constituted a corrupt practice. Similarly, in Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen (2017), the Supreme Court ruled that invoking religion, race, caste, or community to seek votes amounts to a corrupt practice under Section 123(3).
- Improper Acceptance or Rejection of Nomination: The improper rejection of any nomination paper automatically voids the election, while the improper acceptance of a nomination voids it if it materially affects the result.
- Statutory Non-Compliance: Non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution, the RPA, 1951, or related election rules. In Kisan Shankar Kathore v. Arun Dattatray Sawant (2014), suppression of material assets and liabilities in nomination affidavits was held to invalidate the election.
Remedies Available to the Aggrieved Party
An aggrieved party against whom an order is made by the High Court has specific statutory remedies available:
- Statutory Appeal to the Supreme Court (Section 116A): An appeal lies directly to the Supreme Court on both questions of fact and law against any final order passed by the High Court. The appeal must be preferred within 30 days of the order.
- Stay of Operation (Section 116B): The High Court or the Supreme Court may grant an interim stay of the operation of the order declaring the election void, allowing the candidate to retain their seat provisionally pending the appeal.
Conclusion
Although the RPA, 1951, provides a structured adjudication process, election trials frequently outlast the legislative term due to prolonged litigation. Implementing the Law Commission's 255th Report recommendation to set up dedicated permanent Election Benches in High Courts is essential to enforce the statutory six-month disposal target and safeguard electoral justice.