Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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