Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Permissive Use Cannot Ripen into Right of Prescriptive Easement: Kerala High Court High Court Slams Procedural Delays, Orders FSL Report in Assault Case to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice Petitioner Did Not Endorse Part-Payments on Cheque; Section 138 NI Act Not Attracted: Madras High Court Minority Christian Schools Not Bound by Rules of 2018; Disciplinary Proceedings Can Continue: High Court of Calcutta Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta 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

 

Similar News