Challenging the Ballot: A Guide to Appealing Election Results in India

Author – Pravin Bhange

Introduction-

Elections form the bedrock of democracy, providing citizens with an opportunity to choose their leaders and take part in governance. In India, the largest democracy in the world, this electoral process is framed by an elaborate structure of constitutional provisions, statutory laws, and judicial pronouncements. The Representation of the People Act, 1951 deals with most disputes that arise over elections; the specific reasons and processes of contesting election results are defined and provided for. Further, the Supreme Court, as well as judgments of High Courts, has evolved the entire process to maintain a fair and transparent and democratic electoral order.

Legal Framework for Election Dispute-

Key Constitutional Provisions-

This is how the Indian constitution provides for elections through the following article:

Article 324, vests the authority of conducting elections and regulating them with the authority of the Election Commission of India (ECI); thus, the processes are carried out freely and fairly.

Article 326, establishes as the basis for elections as universal adult suffrage.

Article 327 and 328, conferred on Parliament and State Legislature the power to enact laws pertinent to elections.

Article 329: Prohibits interference by courts in election matters, except through election petitions as provided for by law.

Representation of the People Act, 1951-

The RPA is the foundation legislation on elections and election disputes in India. It lays down:

Detailed grounds for an election being declared void.

Requirements for bringing an election petition.

Procedural and jurisdictional aspects of election disputes.

Grounds for Election Result Rejection

Under Section 100 of the RPA, an election can be declared void on the following grounds:

Corrupt Practices:

Acts such as bribery, undue influence, intimidation, or handing over money or gifts for voting.

Such practices vitiate the sanctity of elections and are heavily penalized in the eyes of law.

Non-compliance with Laws:

Non-compliance with provisions of the Constitution, RPA, or electoral rules.

This encompasses procedural violations that affect the credibility of the election.

Improper Handling of Nomination:

The wrongful acceptance or rejection of nomination papers of a candidate during the scrutiny process.

Such mistakes can skew the electoral playing field.

Counting Malpractices:

Errors or manipulation of the vote-counting process.

This encompasses vote tallying irregularities, misreporting of results, or tampering with voting machines.

Disqualification of Candidates:

Cases in which the returned candidate is declared ineligible to contest under the extant laws, such as dual citizenship, insolvency, or criminal convictions.

Who can File?

Eligibility:

Any candidate who contested for election

Any elector of the constituency having direct and tangible interest in the results of such election.

Where to File?

Jurisdiction:

Election petitions must be presented to the High Court of a state in which the election took place

The High Court is solely vested with the jurisdiction over the resolution of disputes surrounding elections both for parliament and legislative states.

Time Limit to file

Section 81 of RPA requires that election petitions be filled within 45 days following the declaration of results.

No negotiations are entertained over that period, and no filing submitted after the said dates.

Procedure for Filing and Adjudicating Election Petitions

Contents of a Petition:

Particulars: The petition ought to contain clear averments clearly stating the election, what the dispute is based upon, and other evidence given.

Affidavit: Petitioners must furnish an affidavit whereby they assert the truth of facts.

Relief Sought: In the petition, petitioners may include relief sought; such could be that the court declared the election invalid, a different candidate elected, or simply ordered a re-count

Court Fees: fees and cost prescribed must accompany the petition.

Trial Procedure-

Issue Framing: The court formulates important legal and factual questions to be determined.

Evidence: Oral and documentary evidence are presented by both the parties to support their claim

Cross-Examination: This is the cross-examining of the witnesses’ testimonies for questioning the reliability of their testimonies.

Arguments: Arguments are presented by both sides before the judgment by the court.

Dismissal of the Petition

It will be dismissed if no valid grounds are proved and not enough evidence to prove its claim.

Declaration of Election Void: If malpractices or irregularities are proven to have materially affected the election.

Declaration of Another Candidate as Elected: If evidence shows the petitioner secured the majority of valid votes.

Appeals:

Appeals against High Court decisions can be filed with the Supreme Court within 30 days of the judgment.

Notable Election Petitions and Judgments

1. Indira Gandhi vs. Raj Narain (1975)

Facts:

Indira Gandhi’s victory in the Rae Bareli constituency during the 1971 Lok Sabha elections was challenged by her opponent, Raj Narain.

He alleged electoral malpractices, including misuse of government resources and bribery.

Issues:

Did Gandhi engage in corrupt practices under the RPA?

Could laws be amended retrospectively to validate her election?

Judgment:

The Allahabad High Court invalidated Gandhi’s election, finding her guilty of corrupt practices.

During the crisis, the 39th Constitutional Amendment prevented courts from adjudging election disputes of key officers, but the Supreme Court reversed its retrospective application, re-establishing judicial review as an essential feature of the Constitution.

Effects:

Judicial review and the principle of free and fair elections were consolidated.

Amendments

39th Amendment: Key officers’ elections were made immune from judicial review but partially struck down by the SC.

2. Kihoto Hollohan vs. Zachillhu (1992)

Facts:

The case scrutinized the anti-defection law under the Tenth Schedule, which bars legislators for switching parties.

It cast questions on the impartiality of the Speaker’s role.

Issues:

Is the decision of the Speaker under the Tenth Schedule amenable to judicial review?

Does the Tenth Schedule violate the basic structure of the Constitution?

Judgment:

The SC upheld the Tenth Schedule but held that judicial review is available regarding procedural fairness in the Speaker’s decisions.

Effect:

Strengthened anti-defection provisions while simultaneously ensuring checks on the power of the Speaker.

3. Lok Prahari vs. Union of India (2018)

Background:

Lok Prahari, an NGO, made a demand for greater transparency by mandating the disclosure of the criminal antecedents and assets and liabilities of candidates.

Issues:

Should electoral candidates reveal their criminal antecedents?

Does mandatory disclosure invade privacy?

Judgment:

The SC ordered full disclosure of financial details and criminal antecedents and relied on the right of voters to make informed choices.

Significance:

Increased transparency in the elections and accountability of the candidates.

4. BK Rai & Another vs. Union of India & Others

Facts:

BK Rai complained of electoral malpractice, which also included the government machinery’s misutilization.

Issues:

Were the elections conducted fairly and on merit?

Judgment:

The court rejected the complaints due to the lack of proof.

Impact:

The judgments reasserted the necessity of robust proof in election cases.

5. Sandeep Vinod Kumar Singh & Another vs. Election Commission of India & Others

Facts:

This case challenged the procedural integrity of elections and the role of the ECI.

Issues:

Were procedural lapses a weakness in the electoral process?

Was the ECI fair while conducting the elections?

Judgment:

The SC affirmed the independence and procedural integrity of the ECI, where allegations need to be well-supported by evidence.

Impact:

This case further strengthened the role of the ECI as a neutral and independent body.

Recent Case Study

Shahaji Nanai Thorat vs. Sanjay Dina Patil (2024)

Background Facts

Shahaji Thorat challenged the election of Shiv Sena leader Sanjay Dina Patil from Mumbai North-East on allegations of electoral malpractices.

Issues

Were the allegations of malpractices valid and supported by evidence?

Did the Bombay High Court commit an error in dismissing the petition?

Judgment

The Bombay HC dismissed Thorat’s petition, relying on lack of substantive evidence.

Impact

Reaffirmed the necessity of producing credible and robust evidence in election disputes.

Electoral Law Amendments and Reforms

Anti-Defection Act:

The judicial pronouncements have strengthened the Tenth Schedule, making the politics stable.

Transparency Provisions:

The Lok Prahari judgment has enforced the requirement of criminal and financial antecedents of candidates by the court, which increased voter awareness.

Simplified Procedure:

Amendments of procedural laws have ensured timely disposal of election disputes with minimum delay.

Judicial Oversight:

Decisions such as Indira Gandhi and Chandra Kumar have established that judicial review is an essential check and balance for democracy.

Conclusion-

The process of appealing election results in India is well-defined and robust, reflecting the country’s commitment to democratic principles. The legal framework, bolstered by landmark judgments and periodic amendments, ensures that electoral disputes are resolved transparently and fairly. By reinforcing judicial review, promoting transparency, and streamlining procedures, India continues to uphold the sanctity of its electoral process, ensuring that democracy thrives.