Judge P.K. Goswami aptly stated that “The right to challenge an election is conferred under the Act which is made in conformity with the provisions of Article 329(b) of the Constitution. It is well settled that it is a special right conferred under a self-contained special law, and the court will have to seek answers to the questions raised within the four corners of the Act. The powers of the courts are circumscribed by its provisions. This is not a common law right, and an election petition cannot be equated with a plaint in a civil suit.”
Despite this clarity, obtaining expedited judgments in election petitions remains a persistent challenge. With political parties actively contesting elections through their nominated candidates, understanding election petitions is essential for safeguarding democratic values. In an indirect democracy like India, voters must rely on a transparent, free, and fair electoral process to select their representatives. As part of the fundamental right to free and fair elections, recognised under Article 19(2) of the Constitution, elections are central to democracy.
Initially, I viewed voting as the ultimate expression of democracy. However, as I progressed in law school, I realized that democracy extends beyond voting to include the transparency of the entire electoral process, including the conduct of elections and vote counting.
In a populous country like India, ensuring free and fair elections is undoubtedly a Herculean task. For instance, Maharashtra, a state with a population in crores, conducts state-wide elections in a single phase, requiring meticulous governance and surveillance. Elections often become a power struggle, and in the zeal to win, some candidates resort to illegal means, disregarding the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) guidelines and the Model Code of Conduct.
The Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA) governs election disputes, offering a detailed framework to question election validity and address grievances. Over the years, various Supreme Court and High Court judgments have strengthened this legal framework, forming the backbone of election dispute resolution.
Grounds for challenging elections
Section 100 of the RPA provides avenues to challenge election results in cases of corrupt practices, including bribery, undue influence, impersonation, or procedural lapses. Common grounds include:
- Non-compliance with constitutional or statutory provisions.
- Errors in the scrutiny of nomination forms.
- Malpractices during vote counting.
Such violations undermine the electoral process and provide legitimate grounds for filing election petitions.
Empowering citizens in election petitions
Traditionally, only candidates contesting elections file election petitions. However, voters of that constituency can also challenge election results. Empowering citizens with this knowledge enables proactive engagement in maintaining democratic integrity. The slogan “Your vote, your voice” transcends mere voting—it includes taking action against unfair practices. Proactive citizen involvement in election disputes can expose corrupt practices and reinforce constitutional principles.
Judges must appreciate the role of informed citizens who act as watchdogs for democratic values. When citizens file election petitions, they contribute to creating a culture of accountability and transparency.
Filing and adjudication of election petitions
Under Section 81 of the RPA, election petitions must be filed within 45 days of the election results. The procedural requirements for an election petition include:
- Particulars of the dispute: Details of the constituency, contesting candidates, and grounds for challenging the results.
- Affidavit: A sworn affidavit affirming the truthfulness of the allegations.
- Relief sought: Specific remedies expected by the petitioner.
Petitioners are also required to bear court fees and litigation costs, including legal representation.
Election petition trials follow civil suit proceedings, involving:
- Framing of issues.
- Presentation of evidence by both parties.
- Cross-examination of witnesses.
- Arguments by counsel.
The court may dismiss the petition if the petitioner fails to substantiate their claims. However, if allegations are proven, the court may declare the election void or, in certain cases, award victory to another candidate with valid votes.
Appeals and judicial oversight
Parties aggrieved by High Court decisions can appeal to the Supreme Court of India within 30 days. The Supreme Court reviews the judgment and may uphold, modify, or overturn the High Court’s decision.
Role of the judiciary and citizens
In Maharashtra, the Bombay High Court and its benches in Aurangabad (Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar) and Nagpur adjudicate election disputes for State Legislative Assembly and Parliamentary elections. Judges must balance legal provisions with constitutional principles, ensuring the process remains fair and impartial.
Equally, citizens must move beyond passive voting roles and actively participate in safeguarding democratic processes. By challenging malpractices and holding governance accountable, voters ensure electoral integrity and contribute to the broader vision of constitutional democracy.
Conclusion
The procedural intricacies and legal nuances of election petitions provide a robust framework to address electoral grievances. By fostering awareness among citizens and ensuring judicial efficiency, India can strengthen its democratic ethos. Upholding the democratic principles of free and fair elections requires collective responsibility—from candidates, voters, and the judiciary alike. The journey of democracy does not end with casting a vote; it extends to ensuring that every step of the electoral process embodies transparency, fairness, and accountability.
(The author is a practicing advocate, constitutional analyst and an Ashoka Fellow (Washington); he can be reached at asim.human@gmail.com)