CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

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