Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.G. Ajithkumar, J.
Adv.M.Swaraj – Petitioner
Versus
K.Babu And Ors. – Respondents
Election Petition No. 8 of 2021
Decided On : 11-04-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of parties and election details (Para 1) |
| 2. 1st respondent's objections to the petition (Para 2) |
| 3. challenging the apex court verdict (Para 3) |
| 4. petitioner's allegations of corrupt practices (Para 4 , 6) |
| 5. allegations of distribution of election slips using religious symbols. (Para 5) |
| 6. evidence presented during the trial (Para 8 , 9) |
| 7. contention regarding distribution of election slips (Para 10 , 11) |
| 8. definition and precedent on religious symbol use in elections (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 9. prohibition on religion in electoral processes (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 10. identification of lord ayyappa as a religious symbol (Para 21) |
| 11. acceptance of election agent's identity (Para 22) |
| 12. intertwined questions regarding slip distribution (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 13. child welfare and risks of slips' distribution (Para 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 14. need for corroborative evidence in electoral fraud (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 15. standards of proof in election petitions (Para 35 , 36) |
| 16. complaints filed and evidentiary issues (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 17. evaluation of evidence credibility (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44) |
| 18. constitutional prohibition against corrupt practices (Para 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49) |
| 19. judicial scrutiny of electoral complaints (Para 50 , 51) |
| 20. compromise and balance with electoral integrity (Para 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57) |
| 21. petitioner's claims of voter slip distribution (Para 58 , 59 , 60 , 61) |
| 22. conclusive remarks on the petition dismissal (Para 62 , 63 , 64) |
| 23. concluding the case against the petitioner (Para 65 , 66 , 67) |
| 24. final decision on the petition (Para 68) |
| 25. conclusion and order (Para 69) |
The petitioner and the 1st respondent, besides five others, contested the election held on 06.04.2021 to elect the member from 081-Thrippunithura Constituency to the Kerala Legislative Assembly. The result was declared on 02.05.2021. The 1st respondent, who was a candidate of the Indian National Congress, a constituent of the United Democratic Front(UDF), returned. The petitioner, who was a candidate of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), a constituent of Left Democratic Front (LDF), calls into question the election of the 1st respondent on the ground of corrupt practices.
2. The 1st respondent raised preliminary objections pointing out material defects in the election petition, want of cause of action to constitute corrupt practices and non-compliance of the provisions of Section 81 of the R.P.Act and Rule 212 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1973. Preliminary objections were considered by this Court as per order dated 29.03.2023 and sustained a part of the objection. The operative part of the said order reads,-
“1) the election petition on the basis of the allegations contained in paragraphs No.10 to 14 and 20 to 28 of the Election Petition that-, i) the 1st respondent committed corrupt practice since he, his election agent and other persons with his consent or his election agent induced the electors to vote for him and not to vote for the petitioner by publicising the messages that unless they do so, they will be rendered objects of divine displeasure coming within the meaning of Section 123(2)(a)(ii) of the R.P.Act, or
ii) appealed to the electors to vote for him and refrain from voting to the petitioner on the ground of religion coming within the purview of Section 123 (3) of the R.P.Act, do not make out a cause of action. Therefore, the Election Petition as regards the said allegations is rejected under the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code, and
2) The averments in paragraphs No.16 to 21 of the Election Petition that the 1st respondent, his election agent and other persons with the consent of the 1st respondent and his election agent, used Hindu religious symbol by distribution of Annexures I to III and similar slips to electors, for the furtherance of the prospects of election of the 1st respondent and for prejudicially affecting the election of the petitioner, made
AI
In election petitions alleging corrupt practices, the burden of proof rests on the petitioner to establish claims beyond reasonable doubt, and mere oral testimonies without corroborative evidence are....
The use of religious symbols in election campaigning is prohibited under Section 123(3) of the R.P. Act, and the burden of proof lies on the petitioner to establish allegations of corrupt practices b....
Corrupt practices in elections, including undue influence based on religion and dissemination of false statements, violate the Representation of People Act, leading to disqualification and annulment ....
RP Act is a complete and self contained code, within which, any rights claimed in relation to an election or an election dispute must be found.
The burden of proof in election petitions for corrupt practices lies with the petitioner, requiring evidence beyond reasonable doubt, which was not established in this case.
Clause (4) of Section 123 of Act shows that publication is required to be reasonably calculated by a candidate or his agent.
An election petition may be rejected if it fails to comply with mandatory pleading requirements regarding concise statements of material facts and particulars of corrupt practices as per the Represen....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
