1. The petitioner who is the defeated candidate from the (10) Azheekode Assembly Constituency of the Kerala Legislative Assembly in the election held on 16.05.2016, challenges the election of the respondent alleging commission of corrupt practice of undue influence under Section 123(2)(a)(ii), and other corrupt practices under Section 123(3) and 123(4) of the Representation of People Act 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'R.P. Act 1951'). Respondents 1 to 9 were the other candidates who contested the election, however, the main contest was between the petitioner and the 1st respondent. Petitioner was the official candidate of Communist Party of India Marxist (CPIM), the main constituent of Left Democratic Front (for short LDF) and the first respondent was the official candidate of Indian Union Muslim League (IUML), one of the coalition party of the United Democratic Front (for short UDF). Petitioner was alloted the symbol “hammer, sickle and star” and the first respondent was alloted the symbol “ladder”, according to Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968. Petitioner got 60,795 votes and the first respondent secured 63,082 votes and first respondent was declared elected with a margin of 2287 votes from the Azheekode Assembly Constituency.

2. The petitioner's case is that the first respondent, being a Muslim candidate, his agents and other persons, with the consent of the candidate or his election agent, appealed to the voters belonging to Muslim community, to vote for him on the ground of religion. They printed, published and circulated Ext.P2 pamphlet among the voters belonging to Muslim community and appealed to voters who belonged to Muslim community to refrain from voting for the petitioner on the ground that he is not a member of Muslim community and warned them not to vote for a candidate, who is not a believer in islamic faith and quoted a passage from holy Quran, Part 26 Chapter 49 (AL Hujurath). The contents of the pamphlet conveyed an impression among the Muslim voters in the Constituency not only to cast vote in favour of first respondent, but also demanded to refrain from voting for the petitioner. The first respondent or his agents or other persons, with the consent of the first respondent or his election agent printed, published and circulated Ext.P3, P4 and P5 pamphlets among the voters of the constituency and the contents of the pamphlets are in relation to the personal character and conduct of the petitioner. Ext.P3 pamphlet is published with the caption in malayalam “veedu nokkathavanu naadu nannakkan kazhiyumo”, and also contained the photograph of the petitioner with Saritha Nair, a lady involved in Solar Scam and another photograph of petitioner with his wife and children. It also contains a statement to the effect that petitioner is having wayward life with Saritha S Nair. It creates an impression that petitioner is a cheat and his wife is about to file a petition for divorce. The above statements are in relation to the personal character and conduct of the petitioner. Ext.P4 pamphlet contains a statement with a caption “nikesh kumar 20 laksham vangiyennu Rajkumar Unni”. The said Rajkumar Unni is the owner of a Bar Hotel and the President of Bar Hotel Owners Association. Ext.P5 pamphlet was published with caption “Nikesh Kumar chettakkudilil ninnu maalikayil ethiya kodeeswaran”. It also contains a statement quoting Mathrubhoomi Malayalam daily that the petitioner has got assets worth 4.5 Crores and he owns a house having an area of 5579 Sq.feet in Ernakulam and that there is a public demand that an enquiry should be conducted how Nikesh Kumar, who was a Journalist acquired so much assets. In the bottom of Exts.P2 to P5, it was mentioned that “printing and publishing President Indian Overseas Congress, Kannur Jilla Committee” to make it appear that it was not printed and published by first respondent or his agents. The statement of facts mentioned in the pamphlets are false, and no