Election Dispute Resolution in India

Procedures to Decide Disputes Arising Out of Election of MPs/MLAs

The RP Act, 1951, lays down a specific procedure for deciding disputes related to the election of Members of Parliament (MPs) and State Legislatures. The process is as follows:

• Election Petition: Any person aggrieved by an election can file an election petition before the High Court concerned. The petition must be filed within 45 days from the date of election notification.
• Grounds for Petition: The petition must state the grounds on which the election is challenged (detailed in the next section).
• Trial by High Court: The High Court conducts a trial, similar to a civil suit, to examine the evidence and arguments presented by both sides.
• Summary Procedure: The High Court can adopt a summary procedure if it deems fit, especially in cases involving technicalities.
• Decision and Appeal: The High Court delivers its judgment. An appeal against the High Court’s decision lies before the Supreme Court.

Grounds on Which the Election of a Returned Candidate May Be Declared Void

Section 100 of the RP Act, 1951, specifies the grounds on which an election can be declared void. These include:

• Non-compliance with Provisions of the Act: If the election was not conducted in accordance with the provisions of the RP Act, such as regarding nomination, scrutiny, or polling.
• Corrupt Practices: If the returned candidate or their agent engaged in corrupt practices like bribery, intimidation, or undue influence. (Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, 1975) established the importance of proving corrupt practices beyond reasonable doubt.
• Illegal Practices: Practices prohibited under the Act, such as canvassing near polling stations.
• Disqualification: If the returned candidate was disqualified from contesting the election under Article 102 of the Constitution (for MPs) or Article 192 of the Constitution (for MLAs).
• Defect in Nomination: If there was a defect in the nomination paper of the returned candidate.
• False Statements: If the returned candidate made a false statement in their nomination paper.

Remedy Available to the Aggrieved Party Against the Decision

The RP Act provides a hierarchical remedy system:

• Appeal to the Supreme Court: An aggrieved party can appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision of the High Court. (S.S. Dhanoa v. Election Commission of India, 1991) clarified the scope of judicial review in election matters.
• Election Tribunal: Before the 87th Amendment Act, 2003, election disputes were decided by Election Tribunals. This system was abolished, and the High Courts were given jurisdiction.
• By-Election: If the election is declared void, the ECI is obligated to hold a by-election to fill the vacancy.

It’s important to note that the Supreme Court’s intervention is generally limited to questions of law and not questions of fact, unless there is a clear error of law or a substantial miscarriage of justice.

The process is designed to be expeditious, but delays are common due to the complex nature of the cases and the volume of litigation. Recent amendments have aimed to streamline the process, but further reforms are needed to ensure timely resolution of election disputes.