Q. Discuss the procedures to decide the disputes arising out of the election of a Member of the Parliament or State Legislature under The Representation of the People Act, 1951. What are the grounds on which the election of any returned candidate may be declared void? What remedy is available to the aggrieved party against the decision ? Refer to the case laws.

Model Answer: 

Election Dispute Resolution under the Representation of the People Act, 1951

The Representation of the People Act, 1951 provides the framework for resolving disputes arising from elections to Parliament and State Legislatures. The Act outlines specific procedures and grounds for challenging election results, ensuring a fair and transparent democratic process.

Procedures for deciding election disputes:

• An election petition must be filed within 45 days of the result declaration.
• High Courts have exclusive jurisdiction to hear these cases.
• The court follows a trial-like procedure, examining evidence and witnesses.
• Petitioners must deposit security for costs to discourage frivolous claims.

The Act specifies several grounds on which an election may be declared void:

1. Corrupt practices by the candidate or their agents (e.g., bribery, undue influence).
2. Improper acceptance or rejection of nomination papers.
3. Improper reception, refusal, or rejection of votes.
4. Non-compliance with constitutional provisions or the Act itself.
5. Failure of the elected candidate to file election expenses within the prescribed time.

Notable examples include booth capturing, intimidation of voters, and violation of the Model Code of Conduct.

If aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, parties can appeal to the Supreme Court within 30 days. The Supreme Court’s judgment is final and binding.

Landmark case laws have shaped the interpretation of election disputes:

• Jyoti Basu vs. Debi Ghosal (1982): Established that courts should not lightly interfere with election results unless substantial violations are proven.
• Abhiram Singh vs. C.D. Commachen (2017): Clarified the scope of corrupt practices, particularly regarding appeals based on religion, race, caste, or language.

These procedures and provisions aim to balance the need for electoral integrity with the stability of elected governments. They provide a structured mechanism for addressing grievances while deterring frivolous challenges.

Conclusion: The Act establishes a comprehensive system for resolving election disputes, safeguarding democratic principles and ensuring electoral justice.