IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that allegations of exceeding election expenditure limits were not substantiated, emphasizing the election petitioner's burden to prove corrupt practices beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

(C. Jayachandran, J.) :

“At the bottom of all tributes paid to democracy is the little man, walking into a little booth, with a little pencil, making a little cross on a little bit of paper—no amount of rhetoric or voluminous discussion can possibly diminish the overwhelming importance of that point.”

? Winston Churchill [House of Commons, 31.10.1944].

The mandate of the little men from Pala constituency (093) in the election of the Legislative Assembly held on 06.04.2021 is under challenge in this Election Petition. The specific ground canvassed is contravention of Section 77, propounded as a deemed corrupt practice under Section 123(6) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 ('the R.P. Act', for short). Are the charges of corrupt practice to be equated to criminal charges, warranting proof – not by the yardstick of preponderance of probability – but beyond doubt? Does the principles of equity has any relevance in adjudging an Election Petition? Is the court bound to make a finding in favour of the election petitioner, invoking Order VIII, Rule 5, for non-traverse of the allegations, in the written statement? Is contravention of Section 77(1) and (2) a corrupt practice as prescribed by Section 123(6)? Interesting will it be to unfurl the answers to these questions which arise in this Election Petition.

2. Petitioner was a contestant from Pala constituency in the Legislative Assembly Election of 2021. The 1st respondent is the returned candidate, who won by a margin of 15,378 votes over respondent no.2, who secured the 2nd position, as per the election results declared on 02.05.2021. Other respondents were also contestants in the said election.

3. The pleadings:

Before addressing the pleadings, it requires to be pointed out that this Election Petition was initially preferred by the petitioner as party-in-person. Later, Adv.Sunil Cyriac was appointed as the counsel for the petitioner by the Honourable Supreme Court in a proceeding carried from an Order passed by this Court. Thereupon, an amendment was sought for to the Election Petition, which was allowed. This Court will therefore refer to the pleadings in the amended Election Petition here below:

As per the hand book issued by the Election Commission of India for candidates, the maximum amount that a contesting candidate can spend in the assembly elections is Rs.30,80,000/-. A common man cannot afford this amount and he cannot contest in a fair election. As per the hand book afore referred, every candidate is required to keep by himself or his election agent a separate and correct account of all expenditure incurred or authorised by him or his election agent, from the date on which the candidate is nominated till the date of declaration of result, both days inclusive. As per Section 77(3) of the R.P. Act, the total of the said expenditure shall not exceed such amount prescribed. Incurring or authorising of expenditure in excess of the limit prescribed, is a corrupt practice under Section 123 of the R.P. Act. The District Election Officer issued election proceedings dated 10.03.2021 stipulating that the total expenditure shall not exceed Rs.30,80,000/-. It also provides for a rate chart for monitoring the election expenditure in the Legislative Assembly election of the year 2021. As per the hand book for candidates, each candidate is required to maintain the day-to-day accounts of the election expenditure in a register, with supporting documents, which register shall be made available for inspection on three occasions at least, to the returning officer/expenditure observer appointed by the Commission. The 1st respondent had not maintained the account properly and he failed to make available the register for inspection as provided. As many as three notices were issued to the 1st respondent by the expenditure observer, but no reply even was given by the 1st respondent. As per the expenditure statement submitted by the 1st respondent, which the petitioner obtained under