Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

Use of Religious Symbol in Election Material Constitutes Corrupt Practice: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court of India, in its recent judgment, addressed the critical legal question of whether an election petition filed against K. Babu, the appellant, was unjustly rejected. The court scrutinized the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, particularly focusing on Sections 81, 83, and 123, to determine the validity of the petition’s rejection.

The case stemmed from the 15th Kerala Legislative Assembly election, where K. Babu emerged victorious. M. Swaraj, the first respondent, challenged Babu’s election, alleging corrupt practices, including the use of a religious symbol for canvassing votes. The High Court of Kerala had earlier refused to dismiss the petition, leading to Babu’s appeal to the Supreme Court. The appellant argued non-compliance with the statutory requirements in filing the election petition, focusing on Sections 81 and 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

The Supreme Court, after careful examination, rejected the appellant’s contention regarding non-compliance with Section 81. The court observed, “The statutory provision unequivocally stipulates as to what is required to be done to comply with the mandate thereof.” On the issue of corrupt practices under Section 123(3), the Court found prima facie evidence that the appellant used a religious symbol in election material, which constitutes a corrupt practice. “The use of the picture of Lord Ayyappa in the slips distributed by and on behalf of the appellant constitutes a corrupt practice,” the Court noted.

The judgment delved into the intricacies of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, interpreting its provisions concerning the presentation and contents of an election petition. The Court clarified that non-compliance with Section 83 is not fatal and can be cured, distinguishing it from the mandatory compliance required under Sections 81, 82, and 117.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision to proceed with the trial of the election petition. The Court affirmed that the petition raised a substantial issue under Section 123(3) of the Act of 1951, warranting a full trial.

Date of Decision: February 12, 2024.

Babu vs. M. Swaraj and Others

 

Latest Legal News