Under Article 329(b) of the Constitution and Part VI of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, elections to Parliament and State Legislatures can be challenged only through an election petition before the concerned High Court, after completion of the electoral process.

Legal basis

Article 329(b) of Constitution of India
- No election to either House of Parliament or to the House or either House of the Legislature of a State shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided for by or under any law made by the appropriate Legislature.
The Representation of the People Act, 1951
- As per the Act, the High Court has the original jurisdiction to try election petitions

Procedure for deciding election disputes

Election Petitions
- No election can be called into question except through an election petition presented in accordance with the Act.
  - Forum (High Court): As per Sections 80 and 80A of RPA, 1951, election disputes can only be challenged by an Election Petition in the High Court.
    - The High Court has the original jurisdiction to try election petitions. This jurisdiction is ordinarily exercised by a single Judge assigned by the Chief Justice.
Who Can File(Section 81)
- The petition may be filed by:
  - any candidate at the election; or
  - any elector of the constituency, whether or not that person voted.
When can an Election Petition be Filed?
- It can be filed only after the election is completed and the result is declared
Grounds for Filing an Election Petition
- An election petition may challenge the election of a returned candidate on the following grounds under Section 100 of the RPA, 1951:
  - Lack of qualification or existence of disqualification
    - The returned candidate was not qualified or was disqualified from contesting on the date of election.
  - Commission of corrupt practice
    - A corrupt practice was committed by the returned candidate, election agent or another person with their consent.
  - Improper rejection of nomination
    - The nomination paper of a candidate was wrongly rejected.
  - Materially Affected Results: That the result of the election, specifically regarding the returned candidate, has been materially affected by:
    - The improper acceptance of any nomination.
    - A corrupt practice committed in the interest of the returned candidate by an agent other than their election agent.
    - The improper reception, refusal, or rejection of any vote, or the reception of any vote which is void.
    - Any non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution, the Act, or any rules or orders made under the Act
- Additionally, under Section 101, the petitioner may seek a declaration that another candidate was duly elected where that candidate obtained the majority of valid votes or would have done so but for votes secured through corrupt practices.
Limitation period(Section 81)
- The petition must be presented within forty-five days from the date of the election of the returned candidate (or the later date if there are multiple returned candidates).

Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narain Mishra (1974)

The Supreme Court held that an election petition must be filed within the statutory period of 45 days under Section 81. The delay cannot ordinarily be condoned by applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Contents of the Petition(Section 83)
- The petition must contain:
  - a concise statement of material facts;
  - full particulars of every alleged corrupt practice, including the names, dates and places involved;
- Where the petitioner alleges any corrupt practice
  - an affidavit supporting allegations of corrupt practice

In Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi (1986), the Supreme Court held that an election petition lacking material facts may be dismissed at the threshold.
In F.A. Sapa v. Singora (1991), the Court distinguished between material facts, whose omission is generally fatal, and particulars, which may ordinarily be amended.
- In the landmark case of F.A. Sapa v. Singora (1991), the Supreme Court of India clarified the distinction between "material facts" and "particulars" in the context of an election petition filed under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
- The Court ruled that the complete omission of material facts cannot be cured by later amendments and results in the summary dismissal of the petition, whereas particulars are curable defects that can be amended or supplied at a later stage with the Court's permission.

Relief that may be claimed
- Under Section 84, the petitioner may seek:
  - a declaration that the election of the returned candidate is void; and/or
  - a declaration that the petitioner or another candidate was duly elected.
Trial Procedure
- Civil trial procedure — Section 87
  - The petition is tried by the High Court, as nearly as possible, according to the procedure applicable to civil suits under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, subject to the RPA.
- Expeditious trial — Section 86(6)–(7)
  - Section 86(6) — The High Court should, as far as practicable and consistent with the interests of justice, conduct the trial continuously on a day-to-day basis. Any adjournment beyond the following day must be necessary and supported by recorded reasons.
  - Section 86(7) The trial should be conducted expeditiously, with an endeavor to conclude it within six months from the date of presentation.
Orders of the High Court — Section 98
- At the conclusion of trial, the High Court may:
  - dismiss the election petition;
  - declare the election of the returned candidate void; or
  - declare the election void and another candidate duly elected.

Grounds for declaring an election void — Section 100

Under Section 100(1), the High Court shall declare the election of a returned candidate void if it is of the opinion that:
- Candidate not qualified or disqualified: On the date of the election, the returned candidate was not qualified or was disqualified to be chosen to fill the seat under the Constitution or the Act.
- Corrupt Practices: A corrupt practice was committed by the returned candidate, their election agent, or any other person with the consent of the candidate or their election agent. (Corrupt practices include bribery, undue influence, appeals to religion/race/caste, booth capturing, and exceeding expenditure limits).

Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen (2017)

In Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen (2017), the Supreme Court held that electoral appeals based on the religion, race, caste, community or language of candidates, voters or their agents constitute corrupt practice.

Improper Nomination Rejection: Any nomination was improperly rejected.
Materially Affected Result: The result of the election, in so far as it concerns a returned candidate, has been materially affected by:
- The improper acceptance of any nomination.
- A corrupt practice committed in the interests of the candidate by an agent other than their election agent.
- The improper reception, refusal, or rejection of any vote, or the reception of a void vote.
- Any non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution, the Act, or its rules.

Remedies for the Aggrieved Party

If a party is aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, the following remedies are available:
- Appeal to the Supreme Court: Under Section 116A, an appeal lies to the Supreme Court on any question of law or fact from every order made by a High Court under Section 98 or 99.
  - The Supreme Court may affirm, modify or reverse the High Court’s order.
    - Time Limit for Appeal: The appeal must be preferred within thirty days from the date of the High Court’s order.
- Stay of Operation: An application can be made to the High Court (before the appeal is filed) or the Supreme Court for a stay of operation of the order. If a stay is granted, the order is deemed never to have taken effect

The RPA, 1951 establishes a specialised and self-contained mechanism for resolving election disputes while protecting the continuity of the electoral process. Strict procedural compliance, time-bound adjudication and effective appellate review are essential to ensure that the popular mandate is respected without allowing illegality or corrupt practices to undermine free and fair elections.

Sample Mains Question

Explain the procedure for deciding disputes arising out of elections to Parliament and State Legislatures under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. What remedies are available against the decision of the High Court?
[15 Marks | 250 Words]
What are the grounds on which the election of a returned candidate may be declared void under the Representation of the People Act, 1951? Discuss.
[10 Marks | 150 Words]

Trending Today

✍️ Curated by InclusiveIAS Editorial Team

At InclusiveIAS, our editorial team is led by experts who have successfully cleared multiple stages of the UPSC Civil Services Examination, including Mains and Interview. With deep insights into the demands of the exam, we focus on crafting content that is accurate, exam-relevant, and easy to grasp.

Whether it’s Polity, Current Affairs, GS papers, or Optional subjects, our notes are designed to:

Break down complex topics into simple, structured points
Align strictly with the UPSC syllabus and PYQ trends
Save your time by offering crisp yet comprehensive coverage
Help you score more with smart presentation, keywords, and examples

🟢 Every article, note, and test is not just written—but carefully edited to ensure it helps you study faster, revise better, and write answers like a topper.