Introduction

Election law is a branch of public law that relates to the democratic

processes, election of representatives and office holders, and referendums,
through the regulation of the electoral system, voting rights, ballot
access, election management bodies, election campaign, the division of the
territory into electoral zones, the procedures for the registration of voters and
candidacies, its financing and propaganda, voting, counting of votes, scrutiny,
electoral disputes, electoral observation and all contentious matters derived
from them. It is a discipline falling at the juncture of constitutional
law and political science, and involves "the politics of law and the law of
politics"
 History and the field

After the legally-contested 2000 United States presidential

election between George W. Bush and Al Gore, the importance of election law
has grown in the United States. According to the National Law Journal, election
law "grew from a niche to multi million-dollar draw."[2] The UCLA election law
professor Richard Hasen showed that in the United States, litigation rates have
been soaring for two decades and hit record high during the 2020 election.

Since the early 2000s, election law has been taught at most of the law schools
throughout the United States.[5] American election law experts and academics
are connected in the academic network founded by Daniel H. Lowenstein,
professor at UCLA Law School, and Richard L. Hasen. Lowenstein is
considered the "pioneer" and the one who "invented" the election law.[6][7][8] In
2000s, Lowenstein and Hasen edited the Election Law Journal and the election
law mailinglist.[6] As of 2022, Hasen manages the Election Law Blog and the
mailing list.[9][10] The Election Law Journal is an academic publication devoted
to election law, currently edited by David Canon of the University of
Wisconsin-Madison.[11] Most of its articles deal with election law in the United
States.

According to the Routledge Handbook of Election Law, election law is a

growing area globally. Voters around the world are increasingly challenging
election results. Austria, Switzerland, Slovenia, Iceland, Kenya, and Malawi are
some countries where courts have recently invalidated national elections or
referendums.[16] Electoral disputes are good for democracy, according to the
book's editors.[13] They can "remove voters' doubts, remedy violations, increase
trust, and, when needed, invalidate flawed elections and defend the integrity of
the electoral process. Letting all participants know violations will not be
tolerated benefits future elections."
 Issues
Some of the questions that are addressed by election law are:

 Which people are entitled to vote in an election (e.g. age, residency or

literacy requirements, or poll taxes), and the procedures by which such
persons must register to vote or present identification in order to vote
 Which people are entitled to hold office (for example, age, residency, birth
or citizenship requirements), and the procedures candidates must follow to
appear on the ballot (such as the formatting and filing of nominating
petitions) and rules governing write-in candidates
 The rules about what subjects may be submitted to a direct popular vote
through a referendum or plebiscite, and the rules that governmental agencies
or citizen groups must follow to place questions on the ballot for public
consideration
 The framework by which political parties may organize their internal
government, and how they select candidates to run for political office
(e.g. primary elections)
 The financing of elections (e.g. contribution limits, rules for public financing
of elections, the public disclosure of contributors, and rules
governing interest groups other than a candidate's campaign organization)
 The requirements for creating districts which elect representatives to a
legislative assembly (examples include congressional
districts, ridings or wards within a Municipality)
 What restrictions are placed on campaign advocacy (such as rules on
anonymous adds, false advertising, and limits on free speech)
 How votes are cast at an election (including whether to use a paper ballot, or
some other form of recording votes such as a mechanical voting
machine or electronic voting device, and how information is presented to
voters on the ballot or device)
 How votes are counted at an election, recounts, and election challenges
 Whether, and how, voters or candidates may file legal actions in a court of
law or administrative agency to enforce their rights or contest the outcome
of an election
 Definition of electoral fraud and other crimes against the electoral system
 The sources of election law (for example, constitutions, national statutes,
state statutes, or judicial decisions) and the interplay between these sources
of law.
Regimes in comparative law

France
The French electoral code addresses most of the elections. However, other texts
frame this material for special elections. Thus the Constitution but fixed some
general basic provisions concerning the presidential election, the legislative and
senatorial elections.

For litigation election, the court depends on the concerned election. The
Constitutional Council is responsible for the most important elections:
presidential elections and senatorial elections or referendums. In contrast, to the
municipal or district elections the administrative tribunal has jurisdiction, then
the appeal is to the State Council. Finally, for the regional and European
elections, the Council of State which has jurisdiction at first and last resort.

In decisions on electoral matters, the law takes into account the results: if an
essential principle is violated, the election is canceled but if fraud is "classic"
(ballot stuffing, failure to register as voters, vote the dead ...) but the election
was won (after counting of ballots invalidated) with a large or very large lead,
the judge then cancels rarely the result.

Italy
The Italian Constitution fixes some general basic provisions concerning the
legislative elections. Electoral disputes in Italy are complex because they are
divided between several court orders. For example, with regard to the dispute
concerning registration of candidates for ballots or litigation election, the
administrative court has jurisdiction. For eligibility and disfranchisement, the
judge is the ordinary tribunal.

If a fraud is proven by the judge, it does not cancel necessarily the elections,
[19]
unless they think that the result of election without the fraud would not have
been identical. The survival of the acts already performed by the elected organs
would seem solved by abundant case law that protects innocent trust of third
parties.

Mexico
Elections in Mexico are held every 6 years to elect a president and every 3 years
to elect a legislature. These elections determine who, on the national level, takes
the position of the head of state – the president – as well as the legislature. At
the local level, each of Mexico's 31 constituent states elects a governor to serve
a six-year term; they also elect legislative deputies who sit in state congresses,
and municipal presidents (presidentes municipales, or mayors). Mexico City,
the national capital, elects a head of government in lieu of a mayor, city
assemblymen in lieu of state congressional deputies, and borough mayors in lieu
of municipal mayors.

Philippines
The president, vice-president, and the senators are elected for a six-year term,
while the members of the House of Representatives, governors, vice-
governors, members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (provincial board
members), mayors, vice-mayors, members of the Sangguniang
Panlungsod/members of the Sangguniang Bayan (city/municipal
councilors), barangay officials, and the members of the Sangguniang
Kabataan (youth councilors) are elected to serve for a three-year term.

Synchronized with the national elections are the local elections. The voter may
vote for any of the following:

 Provincial-level: One governor, one vice governor, one to

seven Sangguniang Panlalawigan members (provincial board)
 City- or municipal-level: one mayor, one vice mayor, four to
twelve Sangguniang Panlungsod/Sangguniang Bayan members (city or
municipal council, respectively)

If the city the voter is residing in a highly urbanized city, or independent

component city. or in Pateros, the voter can not vote for any of the provincial-
level positions.

United States
Elections in the United States are held for government officials at
the federal, state, and local levels. At the federal level, the nation's head of state,
the president, is elected indirectly by the people of each state, through
an Electoral College. Today, these electors almost always vote with the popular
vote of their state. All members of the federal legislature, the Congress, are
directly elected by the people of each state. There are many elected offices at
state level, each state having at least an elective governor and legislature. There
are also elected offices at the local level, in counties, cities, towns, townships,
boroughs, and villages; as well as for special districts and school districts which
may transcend county and municipal boundaries.

United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom, election law is legislated for by The Houses of
Parliament. The statutory governance of UK Election law comes from acts of
parliament such as the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. The Electoral
Commission's mandate and establishment was set out in the Political Parties,
Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA), and ranges from the regulation
of political donations and expenditure by political and third parties through to
promoting greater participation in the electoral process.
The Electoral Administration Act 2006 made a number of improvements to
electoral registration, improving the security arrangements for absent voting,
allowing observers to attend elections and a major change in reducing the
minimum age for candidates at UK parliamentary elections. It also introduced
the performance standards regime for electoral services.

Notable authors

According to University of Chicago Law Professor Brian Leiter, the most cited
American election law scholars between 2016 and 2020 included Samuel
Issacharoff, Richard Pildes, Richard Hasen, Heather Gerken, Richard
Briffault, Nathaniel Persily, and Nicholas Stephanopoulos, respectively.
[21]
Other notable election law experts and professors include David Schultz,[22]
[23]
Joshua Douglas,[24][25][26] Ed Foley,[27][28] Guy-Uriel Charles,[29][30] Jessica
Levinson,[31][32][33] Rebecca Green,[34] Eugene Mazo,[35] Justin Levitt,[33][36] in the
U.S, Graeme Orr[37] in Australia and Jurij Toplak in Europe.

Elections in India
India has a parliamentary system as defined by its constitution, with power
distributed between the union government and the states. India's democracy is
the largest democracy in the world.[1]

The President of India is the ceremonial head of state of the country and
supreme commander-in-chief for all defense forces in India. However, it is
the Prime Minister of India, who is the leader of the party or political
alliance having a majority in the national elections to the Lok Sabha (Lower
house of the Parliament). The Prime Minister is the leader of the legislative
branch of the Government of India. The Prime Minister is the chief adviser to
the President of India and the head of the Union Council of Ministers.
India is regionally divided into States (and Union Territories) and each State has
a Governor who is the state's head, but the executive authority rests with
the Chief Minister who is the leader of the party or political alliance that has
won a majority in the regional elections otherwise known as State Assembly
Elections that exercises executive powers in that State. The respective State's
Chief Minister has executive powers within the State and works jointly with the
Prime Minister of India or their ministers on matters that require both State and
Central attention. Some Union Territories also elect an Assembly and have a
territorial government and other (mainly smaller) Union Territories are
governed by an administrator/ letuanent governor appointed by the President of
India.

The President of India monitors the rule of law through their appointed
governors in each State and on their recommendation can take over the
executive powers from the Chief Minister of the State, temporarily when the
elected representatives of the State government have failed to create a peaceful
environment and has deteriorated into chaos. The President of India dissolves
the existing State government if necessary, and a new election is conducted.
Elections

The Election Commission of India is the federal body of India which is enacted
under the provisions of the Constitution, responsible for monitoring and
administering all the electoral processes of India. This body is responsible for
ensuring elections are free and fair, without any bias.[2]

Election ensures the conduct of members pre-elections, during elections, and

post-elections are as per the statutory legislation.

All election-related disputes are handled by the Election Commission. The

Supreme Court of India has held that where the enacted laws are silent or make
insufficient provisions to deal with a given situation in the conduct of elections,
the Election Commission has the residuary powers under the Constitution to act
as appropriate.The first election Commissioner was Sukumar Sen.

The elections for the President and Vice President of India, the Rajya
Sabha (Upper house) and Lok Sabha (Lower house), State Legislative
Assemblies (including Union territories of Delhi and Puducherry), and State
Legislative Councils are conducted by the Election Commission of India (ECI).

The elections to local government bodies, such

as panchayats and municipalities, are conducted by the respective State Election
Commissions (SECs). The State Election Commission is an autonomous
constitutional authority responsible for administering elections to local self-
governments.

Types of elections

Elections in the Republic of India include elections for

 President of India,
 Vice President of India,
 Members of the Parliament in Rajya Sabha (Upper house) and Lok
Sabha (Lower house),
 Members of State Legislative Councils,
 Members of State Legislative Assemblies (includes legislative assemblies of
three union territories - Jammu and Kashmir, National Capital Territory of
Delhi and Puducherry)
 Members of local governance bodies (Municipal bodies and Panchayats),
 By-election is held when a seat-holder of a particular constituent dies,
resigns, or is disqualified.

Parliamentary general elections (Lok Sabha)

Members of Lok Sabha (House of the People) or the lower house of India's
Parliament are elected by being voted upon by all adult citizens of India, who
crossed 18 years from a set of candidates who stand in their respective
constituencies. Every adult citizen of India can vote only in their constituency.
Candidates who win the Lok Sabha elections are called 'Member of Parliament'
and hold their seats for five years or until the body is dissolved by the President
on the advice of the council of ministers. The house meets in the Lok Sabha
Chambers of the Sansad Bhavan in New Delhi, on matters relating to the
creation of new laws, removing or improving the existing laws that affect all
citizens of India. Elections take place once in 5 years to elect 543 members for
the Lok Sabha (Lower house)

State Assembly Elections

Members of State Legislative Assembly, are elected directly by voting, from a
set of candidates who stands in their respective constituencies. Every adult
citizen of India can vote only in their constituency. Candidates who win
the State Legislative Assemblies elections are called 'Member of Legislative
Assembly' (MLA) and hold their seats for five years or until the body is
dissolved by the Governor. The house meets in the respective state, on matters
relating to the creation of new laws, removing or improving the existing laws
that affect all citizens living in that state.

The total strength of each assembly depends on each State, mostly based on size
and population. Similar to the Lok Sabha elections, the leader of the majority
party/alliance takes oath as Chief Minister of the State.

The Election Commission conducts the elections and provides voluntary facility
to 80 years plus aged electors to vote through ballot papers at their homes
depending upon polling booth accessibility. Elections are taken up
enthusiastically by major portion of the population who turn out in high
numbers. For example, An 83-year-old woman, Dolma, cast her vote at Chasak
Bhatori polling station in Pangi area of Chamba district after covering 14
kilometers walking on a snowy road during 2022 assembly elections in
Himachal Pradesh.[9]

Prior to the much awaited Lok Sabha election in 2024, the state assembly
elections in Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Telangana are an
important political event. November 7 and November 17 are the scheduled dates
for Chhattisgarh's elections, while Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Telangana
will hold their votes on November 17, November 23, and November 30,
respectively. The political climate before the national elections is anticipated to
be shaped by the outcomes of these elections, which are anticipated to be
declared on December 3. Key political players in these states are diverse and
competing for domination, such as the Indian National Congress (INC), the
Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and other regional parties. These states differ in
the quantity of assembly seats they have; Chhattisgarh has ninety [10]seats.

Legislative Assembly Elections

BY-ELECTION
When an elected candidate to either the State Assembly or Lok Sabha or Rajya
Sabha leaves the office vacant before their term ends, a by-election is conducted
to find a suitable replacement to fill the vacant position. It is often referred to in
India as Bypolls.

Common reasons for by-elections:

 Resignation by the sitting MP or MLA

 Death of the sitting MP or MLA

But other reasons occur when the incumbent becomes ineligible to continue in
office (criminal conviction, failure to maintain a minimum level of attendance
in the office, due to election irregularities found later, or when a candidate wins
more than one seat and has to vacate one).

Rajya Sabha (Upper House) Elections

The Rajya Sabha, also known as the Council of States, is the upper house of
India's Parliament. Candidates are not elected directly by the citizens, but by
the Members of Legislative Assemblies and up to 13 can be nominated by the
President of India for their contributions to art, literature, science, and social
services. Members of the Parliament in Rajya Sabha get a tenure of six years,
with one-third of the body facing re-election every two years. Rajya Sabha acts
as a second-level review body before a bill becomes an act.[12]

The Vice President of India is the ex-officio Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, who
presides over its sessions.
The Legislative proposals (making new laws, removing or appending new
conditions to the existing law) are brought before either house of the Parliament
in the form of a bill. A bill is the draft of a legislative proposal, which, when
passed by both houses of Parliament (Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha) and assented
to by the President, becomes an Act of Parliament.

The Constitution of India, however, places some restrictions on the Rajya Sabha
which makes the Lok Sabha more powerful in certain areas. For example, it
stipulates that Money bills must originate in the Lok Sabha.

Members of Rajya Sabha debate bills sent by the Lok Sabha and can approve,
reject or send the bill back to the Lok Sabha for further debate and discussion
on the matter, as well as to suggest better changes in the drafted bill. Members
of the Rajya Sabha can only make recommendations to the Lok Sabha for
money bills within 14 days. If the Rajya Sabha fails to return the money bill in
14 days to the Lok Sabha, that bill is deemed to have passed by both the
Houses. Also, if the Lok Sabha rejects any (or all) of the amendments proposed
by the Rajya Sabha, the bill is deemed to have been passed by both Houses of
Parliament of India in the form in which the Lok Sabha finally passes it.

Electoral procedures

Candidates are required to file their nomination papers with the Electoral
Commission. Then, a list of candidates is published. No party is allowed to use
government resources for campaigning. No party is allowed to bribe the
candidates before elections. The government cannot start a project during the
election period. Campaigning ends by 6:00 pm two days before the polling day.

The polling is held between 7:00 am and 6:00 pm. The Collector of each district
is in charge of polling. Government employees are employed as poll officers at
the polling stations. Electronic Voting Machines (EVM) are being used instead
of ballot boxes to prevent election fraud. After the citizen votes, his or her left
index finger is marked with indelible ink. This practice was instituted in 1962.

VOTE FROM HOME

The Election Commission of India has granted permission for individuals aged
80 and above and those with physical challenges to cast their votes from the
comfort of their homes using ballot papers.[13] To avail of this facility, eligible
individuals must register with the designated booth-level officer at least 10 days
prior to the election date. The necessary Form 12-D for facilitating the postal
ballot has been submitted well in advance A dedicated team of five officers,
including a polling officer, micro observer, police officer, and photographer,
will visit their residences to ensure a smooth and transparent polling process.
The entire polling procedure will be documented through photographs and
videos. While the option to vote from home is voluntary, the decision cannot be
reversed later once an elector chooses this method. Election officials in Bhopal,
India, are actively reaching out to the residences of super senior citizens (aged
above 80 years) and voters with disabilities to provide assistance in submitting
their votes through postal ballots for 2023 Madhya Pradesh Legislative
Assembly elections.

India is a diverse country in which every people also have a right of vote as
other nations. In 2024, the seven stages of the Lok Sabha elections have their
dates declared by the Election Commission. Calling it India's "celebration of
democracy," the Commission emphasized the massive preparations that have
been made for this historic event, which involve the mobilization of a
significant number of labor and resources. The ECI has extended the "vote-
from-home" option to people 85 years of age and above,and also with the
Persons those who have Disabilities (PwD), for the first time in the history of
the Lok Sabha elections. The goal of this move is to improve participation and
accessibility in the electoral.

Indelible ink

Research into indelible ink was commenced by the Council of Scientific and
Industrial Research (CSIR). In the 1950s, M. L. Goel worked on this research at
the Chemical Division of the National Physical Laboratory of India. The ink
used contains silver nitrate, which makes it photo-sensitive. It is stored in
amber-colored plastic or brown-colored glass bottles. On application, the ink
remains on the fingernail for at least two days. It may last up to a month,
depending on the person's body temperature and the environment.

ELECTRONIC VOTING

BHAVIK (EVM) were first used in the 1997 election and became the only method of voting in 2004. The
EVMs save time in reporting results. A voter-verified paper audit trail (VVPAT) was introduced on 14
August 2014 in Nagaland.[16] In the 2014 general election, VVPAT was operational in 8 constituencies
(Lucknow, Gandhinagar, Bangalore South, Chennai Central, Jadavpur, Raipur, Patna Sahib and Mizoram)
as a pilot project.[17][18] A slip generated by the VVPAT tells a voter to which party or candidate their vote
has been given, their name, their constituency and their polling booth.[19][20][21][22][23]

Opposition parties demanded that VVPAT be made mandatory all over India due to allegations against the
government of hacking the EVM. Accordingly, Voter-verified paper audit trail (VVPAT) and EVMs were
used in every assembly and the general election in India since 2019.[24][25] On 9 April 2019, Supreme Court
of India gave the judgement, ordering the Election Commission of India to increase the VVPAT slips vote
count to five randomly selected EVMs per assembly constituency, which means the Election Commission
of India has to count VVPAT slips of 20,625 EVMs in the 2019 General elections. [26][27][28] VVPAT enables
voters to cross-check whether the vote they have given goes to their desired candidate as the VVPAT unit
produces a paper slip, additionally called a ballot slip, that contains the name, serial number, and image of
the candidate selected by the voter for his vote. Post the 2019 general election, ECI declared that no
mismatches between EVM and VVPAT.
NOTA

On 27 September 2013, the Supreme Court of India judged that citizens have
the right to cast a negative vote by exercising the "None of the above" (NOTA)
option. This was the result of petitioning by the Electoral Commission and the
People's Union for Civil Liberties in 2009. In November 2013, NOTA was
introduced in five state elections. If the majority votes are for NOTA, the region
comes under presidential jurisdiction and is treated with laws similar to a
national territory.

Absentee voting

India does not provide general absentee voting.[31][32][33] On 24 November 2010,

the Representation of the People (Amendment) Bill 2010 was gazetted to give
voting rights to non-resident Indians but a physical presence at the voting booth
is still required.

Postal voting
Postal voting in India is done only through the "Electronically Transmitted
Postal Ballot Papers (ETPB)" system of Election Commission of India, where
ballot papers are distributed to the registered eligible voters and they return the
votes by post. When the counting of votes commences, these postal votes are
counted before those from the Electronic Voting Machines. Only certain
categories of people are eligible to register as postal voters. People working in
the Union armed forces and state police as well as their spouses, and employees
working for the Government of India who are officially posted abroad can
register for the postal vote, these are also called the "Service voters".
Additionally, people in preventive detention, disabled and those above the age
of 80 years old can use postal vote. Prisoners can not vote at all.

See also

 49-O Now replaced with 'NOTA (None of The Above)'

 Booth capturing
 History of democracy in the Indian-subcontinent
 Gopala I
 Election Commission of India
 Exercise Franchise For Good Governance
 Legislative Assembly elections in India
 British India - General Elections
o 1920 Indian general election
o 1923 Indian general election
o 1926 Indian general election
o 1930 Indian general election
o 1934 Indian general election
o 1945 Indian general election
 British India - Provincial Elections
o 1937 Indian provincial elections
o 1946 Indian provincial elections
Constitutional Provisions Governing Elections

 Election of President – Art. 54 - 58

 Election of vice-president – Art.66- 68
 Election of members of Rajya Sabha – Art.80
 Election of members of Lok Sabha – Art.81
 Disqualification from membership – Art.102, 191
 Election of members of State Legislative AssemblyArt.168,170
 Election of members of State Legislative Councils- Art.171
 Election Commission – Art.324 -329
 Universal Adult Franchise – Art.326
Election of President and Vice President

 Qualifications

Citizen of India;
 Completed the age of 35 years; and
 Qualified for election as a member of the House of the People
 Not holding any office of profit under the Government of India or the
Government of any State or under any local or other authority subject to
the control of any of the said Governments

Procedure
Electoral college consisting of the elected members of both the Houses of
Parliament and the State Legislative Assemblies.
` System of proportional representation
` Single transferable vote.
` Every elected member of the State Assembly shall have votes equal to the
multiples of 1000 in the population of the State divided by the number of
elected members of the Assembly (if the remainder is equal or greater than 500,
the vote of each member shall be increased by one) and each elected member of
either House of Parliament shall have such number of votes as may be obtained
by dividing the total number of votes assigned to the members of the
Assemblies of the States by the total number of elected
Election to Rajya Sabha
Indirect Election.
Council of States shall consist of:
12 members to be nominated by the President
238 representatives of the States and of the Union territories.
The allocation of seats - Fourth Schedule of the Constitution of India.
A nominated member is not eligible to vote.
An elected member will hold office for a period of 6 years. A
member chosen to fill a casual vacancy will serve for the remainder of his
predecessor's term of office.
The Council of States shall not be subject to dissolution, but, as nearly as
possible, 1/3 of the members thereof retire as soon as may be on the expiration
of every second year.

Members of Council of States shall be elected by the elected members of the

Legislative Assembly of the State in accordance with the system of
proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote.

` The procedure for counting of votes is laid down in the

Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961
Election to Lok sabha and State Leg. Assemblies
Lok Sabha - 543 Parliamentary Constituencies - Anglo- Indian members
nominated
Direct election
Single member constituency
One vote each for a candidate, the winner being the candidate who gets the most
votes
First-past-the-post electoral system.
The State Assemblies or Vidhan Sabhas are directly elected bodies. According
to Article 170 of the Constitution, the Legislative Assembly of each State shall
consist of not more than 500, and not less than 60, members chosen by direct
election from territorial constituencies in the State.

Election Commission
Multi – member Commission
( T.N.Seshan v. Union of India, (1995)4SCC611)
` Powers and functions: ( Article 324)
Superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls
™ Control and supervise the conduct of elections.
™ Appointment of chief electoral Officers
™ Decide on disqualifications
™ Registration of political parties (S.29A R.P.Act 1951)
™ Recognition of political parties and Allotment of symbols.
If there is a valid law relating to or in connection with elections, the
Commission is required to act in conformity with the said provisions. In case
where law is silent, Article 324 is a reservoir of power to act for the avowed
purpose of having free and fair election
Election Process
I Delimitation of Constituencies – Art.81(2), Act 1972, 2010
Gerrymandering
II Electoral roll – Draft and final roll
Electoral Registration Officer
III Electoral process
1.Notification
Notification by President/Governor Notification by Election Commission Public
Notice by Returning Officer
2. Nomination
3. List of validly nominated candidates
4. Scrutiny of Nomination
5. Withdrawal of Candidature
6. List of contesting Candidates

Voter : Qualifications and disqualifications

Qualification:
Citizen of India
Not less than 18 years of age. (Art.326) Name in electoral roll
Ordinarily resident (S.20 R.P. Act)
Disqualification:
Unsoundness of mind
Disqualified for corrupt practice under S.16 R.P. Act 1950
Non- registration in the electoral roll
Person in prison or lawful custody except preventive detention
Conviction for corrupt practice or electoral offence
Deafness, blindness, infirmity are no disqualifications
Candidate – Qualification and disqualification

Citizen of India

Subscribes an oath or affirmation according to the form set out for the purpose
in the 3rd Schedule.

Not less than 30 years of age for council of states and, for the Lok Sabha not
less than 25 years of age.

Any other qualifications as may be prescribed by or under any law made by

Parliament.

A person shall not be qualified to be chosen as a representative of any State or

Union Territory in the Council of States unless he is an elector for a
Parliamentary Constituency in India.

In case of a seat reserved for the Scheduled Castes / Scheduled Tribes in any
State, he is a member of any of the Scheduled Castes or of any of the Scheduled
Tribes as the case may be, whether of that State or of any other State, and is an
elector for any Parliamentary Constituency, and in the case of any other seat
(i.e. a seat which is not reserved), he is an elector for any Parliamentary
Constituency.

A person shall not be qualified to be chosen to fill a seat in the Legislative

Council of a State to be filled by election unless he is an elector for any
Assembly Constituency in that State.
Disqualifications

Constitution of India Art. 102, 191

1. Alien
2. Minority
25 years for House of People and Leg. assemblies
30 years for Council of states
3. Insolvency
4. Lunacy
5. Disqualified for defection under Tenth schedule.

Under R. P.Act,1951
I Conviction for offences (S.8)
1. 6 years from date of conviction
2. Continuing further for 6 years from date of release
3. Conviction on corrupt practice
4. Conviction for electoral offences
II Holders of office of profit under Government III Dismissal for corruption or
disloyalty
IV Contract with Government (S.9A)
V Holding of office under Government Company
VI Failure to lodge accounts of election expenses (S.10A)

CORRUPT PRACTICES IN ELECTION

What are the corrupt practices? ´
 Bribery ‐ S.123(1) ´
 Undue Influence – S.123(2) ´
 Appeal on ground of relegion‐S.123(3) ´
  Promotion of enmity or hatred‐S.123(3A) ´ Propagation of sati‐S.123(3B)
´ Publication of false statement‐S.123(4) ´
 Hiring vehicles for conveyance of electors‐ S.123(5) ´
 Incurring expense in contravention of S.77‐ S.123(6) ´
 Obtaining assistance of govt.servant‐S.123(7)

Bribery S. 123(1)
Any gift, offer or promise‐
By a candidate or his agent or by any other person ´ with the consent of a
candidate or his election agent ´ of any gratification, to any person ´ with the
object, directly or indirectly of inducing‐ ´ ´ (a) a person to stand or not to stand
as, or to or as a reward to.
 a person for having so stood or not stood, or for having withdrawn or not
having withdrawn his candidature ;
or
an elector for having voted or refrained from voting ´
Gratification – not restricted to pecuniary gratification, includes all
entertainment, all forms of employment for reward –
does not include bonafide expenses.

Gratification means satisfaction. It means something valuable which is

calculated to satisfy a person’s aim, object or desire, whether or not that is
estimable in terms of money. ´
A mere offer to help in securing employment to a person with a named or
unnamed employer would not amount to gratification.( Mohan singh v.
Bhanwarlal) ´ However employment may amount to bribery if it is offered in
return for votes.
Dhartipakar v. Rajiv Gandhi ´ Speeding up construction of amethi railway
station – challenged as act to persuade voters to cast votes in favour‐ held would
not amount to corrupt practice. ´ Tirnath Singh v. Bachitar singh ´ Minister for
local Administration had granted good work allowance for all sweepers at @
Rs.5 per month on the eve of election. All beneficiaries were voters of his
constituency – election set aside. ´ Mangallal v. H V Kamath, the returned
candidate while addressing a public meeting of voters in a village , heard
complaints of scarcity of water – he selected a site and promised that he will
construct a well after election – held it will amount to bribery.

Treating
way of getting at the voters through their mouth ´ Braj Bhushan v. Anand
Brahma distribution of sweets to school children – not bribery C.Narayana
swami v. C K Jaffer sheriff Mass feeding – not corrupt practice unless object is
to induce participants to vote. Entertainment Muralidhar Reddy v. Pulla Reddy
Drama arranged by candidate as part of election campaign‐ not corrupt practice
Dev Anand v. Bhagvan das ´ The respondent approached one Sant Singh sethi
with a view to getting his support and later paid Rs. 501/‐ to punjabi gurdwara .
After such payment an ‘ akand path was held in Gurdwara where one Kuldip
Singh a member of the Gurdwara executive committee announced that the
akand path had been performed for wishing success to the respondent and
securing the support of sikh voters for his election. Held donation meritorious‐
but at the time of election amounts to bribery..
UNDUE INFLUENCE S. 123(2)
Any direct or indirect Interference or attempt to interfere on the part of the
candidate or his agent, or of any other person with consent of the candidate or
his election agent, with the free exercise of any electoral right: (i) threatens any
candidate or any elector, or any person in whom a candidate or an elector is
interested, with injury of any kind including social ostracism and ex‐
communication or expulsion from any caste or community. (ii) induces or
attempts to induce a candidate or Mere declaration of public policy, or a
promise of public action, or the mere exercise of a legal right without intent to
interfere with an electoral right‐ not undue influence ´ Influence if allowed to
work for itself will not be a corrupt practice. Pressure is the essence of undue
influence. ´ Legitimate exercise of influence by a political party or an
association or a religious leader will not ipso facto be considered undue
influence. Passing a resolution in support of a candidate or asking members to
vote for him would be legitimate exercise of influenceunlessthereis.

Spiritual intimidation
The appearance of a relegious dignitary in support of a party or its candidate
will not by itself amount to undue influence. In such cases the question for
consideration is whether the religious leader has surpassed the bound of
legitimate use of his character, position and power with reference to the class of
voters sought to be influenced. Undue influence can be assumed if religious
position is used to excite superstitious fears or pious hopes. ´ Ram Dayal v. Sant
Ram Firman issued by head of a sikh sect threatened followers with spiritual
consequences in this world as well as world to come undue influence Bhagwan
Dutt v. R.R gupta Threat of Social ostracism Ministers in election campaign –
not undue influence.
Shiv Kripal Singh v. V V Giri ´
It was alleged that the supporters of VV giri with his consent published a
pamphlet in which serious allegations were made about the opposite candidate
Mr. Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy. It was stated that if Mr. Reddy were elected
Rashtrapati Bhavan will be a center of vice and immorality.‐ no evidence of
knowledge or consent– hence rejected.
Appeal on ground of religion S.123(3)

The appeal by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent
of a candidate or his election agent To vote or refrain from voting for any
person on the ground of: his religion, race, caste, community or language the
use of, or appeal to religious symbols the use of, or appeal to, national symbols
(the national flag or the national emblem)
An appeal that voting in a certain manner would be a religious act and failure to
vote in that manner would be against religion would amount to an appeal on the
ground of religion. A reference to prophets or religion or deities venerated in a
religion will not by itself be an appeal on ground of religion. But if illiterate or
orthodox voters are told that their religion will be in danger or that they will
suffer miseries or calamities unless they cast their votes for a particular
candidates would be an appeal on ground of religion. It is not necessary that
there should be a conflict of religion between the rival
Appeal on ground of caste ´ Lachi ram v. jamuna Prasad
Appeal on ground of chamar caste‐ contention of professional brotherhood
rejected Mere mention during campaign – not enough Abdul Hussain v.
Shamsul Huda Projection of candidate that he was an offspring of mixed
marriage between Hindu and Muslim before Hindu and Muslim community –
held not corrupt practice Ramesh yeshwant praboo v. Probhakar Kunte Mere
reference to Hindutwa or Hinduism.
Appeal to religious symbols
Abdul Rahiman v. Radha Krishna
Symbol Bullock of the candidate – described as vehicle of shiva and voting for
him would be voting for shiva.‐ corrupt practice Religious symbol‐ religious
significance Effect in minds of public or section of it.

Promoting enmity or hatred s.123 (3a) ´

The promotion of, or attempt to promote, feelings of enmity
or hatred between different classes of the citizens of India on ´
grounds of religion, race, caste, community, or language, ´ by
candidate or his agent or any other person with the consent of
a candidate or his election agent ´ for the furtherance of the
prospects of the election of that candidate or for prejudicially
affecting the election of any candidate.

Mohammad Koya v. Muthu koya

Publication of false statement s.123(4)

The publication by a candidate or his agent or by any other Person, with the
consent of a candidate or his election agent Of any statement of fact which is
false, and which he either believes to be false or does not believe to be true, in
relation to the personal character or conduct of any candidate, or in relation to
the candidature, or withdrawal of any candidate, statement reasonably
calculated.
Essentials

1. Publication ´
2.By a candidate or his agent or with his consent ´
3. Statement of fact in relation to personal character of the candidate or in
relation to his candidature or withdrawal. ´
4. The statement is false ´ 5. The statement is believed to be false or not
believed to be true ´ 6. The statement is reasonably calculated to prejudice the
prospects of candidate’s election.

Hiring of vehicles s.123(5)

The hiring or procuring any vehicle or vessel By a candidate or his agent or by

any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent For the
free conveyance of any elector (other than the candidate himself, the members
of his family or his agent) ´ To or from any polling station. Use of any public
transport vehicle or railway.

Essential Ingredients:
´
1. The hiring or procuring of a vehicle by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with his
consent. ´
2. The hiring or procuring of the vehicle must be for the conveyance of the voters to and from the
polling station. ´ The conveyance of voters is free from any charge.
Expenditure in Excess S.123 (6)
Election expense S. 77 ´ 1. Every candidate should keep separate and correct
account of all expenditure in connection with the election incurred or authorized
by him or his election agent. S. 77(1) ´ 2. The accounts should all particulars as
might be prescribed. ´ 3. The total of the said expenditure shall not exceed the
prescribed amount. ´ If the candidate incurs or authorizes expenditure in excess
of prescribed amount in contravention ofs77(3) he commits corrupt practice
under.

Obtaining assistance of govt. servant s.123(7)

obtaining or procuring or abetting or attempting to obtain or procure By a
candidate or his agent or, by any other person, with the consent of a candidate
or his election agent Any assistance (other than the giving of vote)for the
furtherance of the prospects of that candidate’s election, from any person in the
service of the Government and belonging to any of the following classes,
namely: (a) gazetted officers; b) stipendiary judges and.

The requirements of S.123(7)

1. The pleadings should disclose the mode of assistance, measure of
assistance, and all the facts pertaining to assistance.
2. The form or kind of assistance obtained or attempted to procure by the
candidate for promoting the prospects of his election should be disclosed.
3. The petitioner should state with exactness, the time and manner of
assistance and the persons from whom the assistance was obtained.

Dhartiprakar v. Rajiv Gandhi, Hardwari Lal v. Kanwal Singh.

Booth capturing s.123(8) and s.135 a ´ "booth capturing"
includes,
(a) seizure of a polling station or a place fixed for the poll by any person or
persons making polling authorities surrender the ballot papers or voting
machines and doing of any other act which affects the orderly conduct of
election; ´ (b)taking possession of a polling station or a place fixed for the poll
by any person or persons and allowing only his or their own supporters to.
exercise their right to vote and prevent others from free exercise of their right to
vote

Electoral offences contd.‐

´
Offences under RP Act 1951
Promoting enmity between classes – S.125 Prohibition of meetings at zero
hour – S.126 Disturbance at election meetings – S.127 Restriction on printing
of posters – S. 127 A Maintenance of secrecy of voting – S.128 Officers at
election influencing voters – S.129 Canvassing in or near polling station – S.130
Disorderly conduct in or near polling station‐ S.131

Electoral offences contd.

 Misconduct at polling station – S.132 ´

 Failure to observe procedure – S.132A ´

  Illegal hiring or procuring of conveyance – S 133 ´

 Breach of official duty – S.134 ´

 Government servants as election agents – S.134 A ´

 Removal of ballot papers – S.135 ´

 Booth capturing S.135 A

Land Mark Judgment

N.P. Ponnuswami .. Appellant
Vs.
The Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, Namakkal, Salem District
and four Others ..

Respondents The Union of India The State of Madhya Bharat .. Interveners

SUMMARY OF THE CASE The appellant filed his nomination paper for election
to the (then) Madras Legislative Assembly from the Namakkal Assembly
Constituency in Salem District. The Returning Officer, at the time of scrutiny of
nomination papers on 28.11.1951, rejected his nomination paper on certain
grounds. Aggrieved by the order of the Returning Officer rejecting his
nomination paper, the appellant moved the Madras High Court under Article
226 of the Constitution seeking a direction to the Returning Officer to include
his name in the list of validly nominated candidates. The High Court dismissed
the writ petition on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to interfere with the
order of the Returning Officer in view of the provisions of Article 329 (b) of the
Constitution. The appellant then moved the present appeal before the
Supreme Court. The Supreme Court also dismissed the appeal confirming the
view of the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the word ‘election’ in
Article 329 (b) connotes the entire electoral process commencing with the
issue of the notification calling the election and culminating in the declaration
of result, and that the electoral process once started could not be interfered
with at any intermediary stage by Courts. Constitution of India (1950), Article
226 and 329 (b) – Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 – If excluded
by Article 329 (b) in regard to order of Returning Officer rejecting nomination
paper for election to the State Assembly. The High Court has no jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution to entertain petitions regarding improper
rejection by the Returning Officer of nomination papers of candidates for
election either to the House of Parliament or to the State Assembly. The
Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 has been excluded in regard to
matters provided for an Article 329 which covers all ‘electoral matters’. The
scheme of Part XV of the Constitution and the Representation of the People
Act, 1951 seems to be that any matter which has the effect of vitiating an
election should be brought up only at the appropriate stage in an appropriate
manner before a special tribunal and should not be brought up at an
intermediate stage before any Court. Under the election law, the only
significance which the rejection of a nomination paper has consists in the fact
that it can be used as a ground to call the election in question. Article 329 (b)
was apparently enacted to prescribe the manner in which and the stage at
which this ground and other grounds which may be raised under the law to call
the election in question, could be urged. It follows by necessary implication
from the language of this provision that those grounds cannot be urged in any
other manner, at any other stage and before any other Court. Appeal under
Article 132 of the Constitution of India from the Judgement and Order dated
the 11th December, 1951 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras (Subba
Rao and Venkatarama Ayyar, JJ.) in Writ Petition No. 746 of 1951. JUDGMENT
Present:– M. Patanjali Sastri, Chief Justice, S. Fazl Ali, Mehrchand Mahajan, B.K.
Mukherjea, S.R.Das and N. Chandrasekhara Aiyar, JJ. N. Rajagopala Iyengar,
Advocate for Appellant. R. Ganapathi Iyer, Advocate for the First Respondent.
M. C. Setelvad, Attorney-General of India (G.N. Joshi, Advocate with him) for
the Union of India. K. A. Chitale, Advocate-General, Madhya Bharat (G.N. Joshi,
Advocate with him) for the State of Madhya Bharat. The Judgement of the
Court was delivered by FAZL ALI.– This is an appeal from an order of the
Madras High Court dismissing the petition of the appellant praying for a write
of certiorari. The appellant was one of the persons who had filed nomination
papers for election to the Madras Legislative Assembly from the Namakkal
Constituency in Salem District. On the 28th November, 1951, the Returning
Officer for that constituency took up for scrutiny the nomination papers filed
by the various candidates and on the same day he rejected the appellant’s
nomination paper on certain grounds which need not be set out as they are
not material to the point raised in this appeal. The appellant there upon
moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ
of certiorari to quash the order of the Returning Officer rejecting his
nomination paper and to direct the Returning Officer to include his name in
the list of valid nominations to be published. The High Court dismissed the
appellant’s application on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to interfere
with the order of the Returning Officer by reason of the provisions of Article
329 (b) of the Constitution. The appellant’s contention in this appeal is that the
view expressed by the High Court is not correct, that the jurisdiction of the
High Court is not affected by Article 329 (b) of the Constitution and that he was
entitled to a writ of certiorari in the circumstances of the case. Broadly
speaking, the arguments on which the judgment of the High Court is assailed
are two-fold : (1) that the conclusion arrived at by the High Court does not
follow from the language of Article 329 (b) of the Constitution, whether that
Article is read by itself or along with the other Articles in Part XV of the
Constitution ; and (2) that the anomalies which will arise if the construction put
by the High Court on Article 329 (b) is accepted, are so startling that the Courts
should lean in favour of the construction put forward on behalf of the
appellant. The first argument which turns on the construction of Article 329 (b)
requires serious consideration, but I think the second argument can be
disposed of briefly at the outset. It should be stated that what the appellant
chooses to call anomaly can be more appropriately described as hardship or
prejudice and what their nature will be has been stated in forceful language by
Wallace, J., in Sarvothama Rao v. Chairman, Municipal Council, Saidapet1, in
these words: ‘‘I am quite clear that any post-election remedy is wholly
inadequate to afford the relief which the petitioner seeks, namely, that this
election, now published, be stayed, until it can be held with himself as a
candidate. It is no consolation to tell him that he can stand for some other
election. It is no remedy to tell him that he must let the election go on and
then have it set aside by petition and have a fresh election ordered. The fresh
election may be under altogether different conditions and may bring forward
an array of fresh candidates. The petitioner can only have his proper relief if
the proposed election without him is stayed until his rejected nomination is
restored, and hence an injunction staying this election was absolutely
necessary, unless the relief asked for was to be denied him altogether in
limine. In most cases of this kind no doubt there will be difficulty for the
aggrieved party to get in his suit in time before the threatened wrong in
committed; but when he has succeeded in so doing; the Court cannot stultify
itself by allowing the wrong which it is asked to prevent to be actually
consummated while it is engaged in trying the suit.’’ These observations
however represent only one side of the picture and the same learned Judge
presented the other side of the picture in a subsequent case (Desi Chettiar v.
Chinnasami Chettair)2 in the following passage : ‘‘The petitioner is not without
his remedy. His remedy lies in an election petition which we understand he has
already put in. It is argued for him that remedy which merely allows him to
have set aside an election once held is not as efficacious as the one which
would enable him to stop the election altogether; and certain observations at
page 600 of Sarvathama Rao v. Chairman, Municipal Council, Saidapet1 are
quoted. In the first place we do not see how the mere fact that the petitioner
cannot get the election stopped and has his remedy only after it is over by an
election petition, will in itself confer on him any right to obtain a writ. In the
second place, these observations were directed to the consideration of the
propriety of an injunction in a civil suit, a matter with which we are not here
concerned. And finally it may be observed that these remarks were made some
years ago when the practice of individuals coming forward to stop elections in
order that their own individual interest may be safeguarded was not so
common. It is clear that there is another side of the question to be considered,
namely, the inconvenience to the public administration of having elections and
the business of Local Boards held up while individuals prosecute their
individual grievances. We understand the election for the elective seats in this
Union has been held up since 31st May because of this petition the result
being that the electors have been unable since then to have any
representation on the Board and the Board is functioning, if indeed it is
functioning, with a mere nominated fraction of its total strength; and this state
of affairs the petitioner proposes to have continued until his own persona
grievance is satisfied.’’ These observations which were made in regard to
elections to Local Boards will apply with greater force to elections to
Legislatures, because it does not require much argument to show that in a
country with a democratic Constitution in which the Legislatures have to play a
very important role, it will lead to serious consequences if the elections are
unduly protracted or obstructed. To this aspect of the matter I shall have to
advert later, but it is sufficient for the present purpose to state firstly, that in
England the hardship and inconvenience which may be suffered by an
individual candidate has not been regarded as of sufficient weight to induce
Parliament to make provision for immediate relief and the aggrieved candidate
has to wait until after the election to challenge the validity of the rejection of
his nomination paper, and secondly, that the question of hardship or
inconvenience is after all only a secondary question, because if the
construction put by the High Court on Article 329 (b) of the Constitution is
found to be correct, the fact that such construction will lead to hardship and
inconvenience becomes irrelevant. Article 329 is the last Article in Part XV of
the Constitution, the heading of which is ‘‘Election’’, and it runs as follows : –
“Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution – (a) the validity of any law
relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such
constituencies, made or purporting to be made under Article 327 or Article
328, shall not be called in question in any court; (b) 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.’’ In construing this Article, reference was made by
both parties in the course of their arguments to the other Articles in the same
Part, namely, Articles 324, 325, 326, 327 and 328. Article 324 provides for the
Constitution and appointment of an Election Commissioner to superintend,
direct and control elections to the Legislatures; Article 325 prohibits
discrimination against electors on the ground of religion, race, caste or sex;
Article 326 provides for adult suffrage; Article 327 empowers Parliament to
pass laws making provision with respect to all matters relating to, or in
connection with, elections to the Legislatures, subject to the provisions of the
Constitution; and Article 328 is a complimentary Article giving power to the
State Legislature to make provision with respect to all matters relating to, or in
connection with, elections to the State legislature. A notable difference in the
language used in Articles 327 and 328 on the one hand, and Article 329 on the
other, is that while the first two Article begin with the words ‘‘subject to the
provisions of this Constitution’’, the last Article begins with the words
‘‘notwithstanding anything in this Constitution’’. It was conceded at the bar
that the effect of this difference in language is that whereas any law made by
Parliament under Article 327, or by the State Legislatures under Article 328,
cannot exclude the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution, that jurisdiction is excluded in regard to matters provided for in
Article 329. Now, the main controversy in this appeal centres round the
meaning of the words ‘‘no election shall be called in question except by an
election petition’’ in Article 329 (b), and the point to be decided is whether
questioning the action of the Returning Officer in rejecting a nomination paper
can be said to be comprehended within the words, ‘‘no election shall be called
in question.’’ The appellant’s case is that questioning something which has
happened before a candidate is declared elected is not the same thing as
questioning an election, and the arguments advanced on his behalf in support
of this construction were these : – (1) That the word ‘‘election’’ as used in
Article 329 (b) means what it normally and etymologically means, namely, the
result of polling or the final selection of a candidate; (2) That the fact that an
election petition can be filed only after polling is over or after a candidate is
declared elected and what is normally called in question by such petition is the
final result, bears out the contention that the word ‘‘election’’ can have no
other meaning in Article 329 (b) than the result of polling or the final selection
of a candidate; (3) That the words ‘‘arising out of or in connection with’’ which
are used in Article 324 (1) and the words ‘‘with respect to all matters relating
to, or in connection with’’ which are used in Articles 327 and 328, show that
the framers of the Constitution knew that it was necessary to use different
language when referring respectively to matters which happen prior to an after
the result of polling, and if they had intended to include the rejection of a
nomination paper within the ambit of the prohibition contained in Article 329
(b) they would have used similar language in that Article; and (4) That the
action of the Returning Officer in rejecting a nomination paper can be
questioned before the High Court under Article 226 of the constitution for the
following reason: Scrutiny of nomination papers and their rejection are
provided for in section 36 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Parliament has made this provision in exercise of the powers conferred on it by
Article 327 of the Constitution which is ‘‘subject to the provisions of the
Constitution’’. Therefore, the action of the Returning Officer is subject to the
extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226. These arguments
appear at first sight to be quite impressive, but in my opinion there are
weightier and basically more important arguments in support of the view
taken by the High Court. As we have seen, the most important question for
determination is the meaning to be given to the word ‘‘election’’ in Article 329
(b). That word has by long usage in connection with the process of selection of
proper representatives in democratic institutions, acquired both a wide and a
narrow meaning. In the narrow sense, it is used to mean the final selection of a
candidate which may embrace the result of the poll when there is polling or a
particular candidate being returned unopposed when there is no poll. In the
wide sense, the word is used to connote the entire process culminating in a
candidate being declared elected. In Srinivasalu v. Kuppuswami1, the learned
Judges of the Madras High Court after examining the question, expressed the
opinion that the term ‘‘election’’ may be taken to embrace the whole
procedure whereby an ‘‘elected member’’ is returned, whether or not it be
found necessary to take a poll. With this view, my brother, Mahajan, J.,
expressed his agreement in Sat Narain v. Hanuman Parshad2; and I also find
myself in agreement with it. It seems to me that the word ‘‘election’’ has been
used in Part XV of the Constitution in the wide sense, that is to say, to connote
the entire procedure to be gone through to return a candidate to the
Legislature. The use of the expression ‘‘conduct of elections’’ in Article 324
specifically points to the wide meaning, and that meaning can also be read
consistently into the other provisions which occur in Part XV including Article
329 (b). That the word ‘‘election’’ bears this wide meaning whenever we talk of
elections in a democratic country, is borne out by the fact that is most of the
books on the subject and in several cases dealing with the matter, one of the
questions mooted is, when the election begins. The subject is dealt with quite
concisely in Halsbury’s Laws of England in the following passage1 under the
heading ‘‘Commencement of the Election’’:– ‘‘Although the first formal step in
every election is the issue of the writ, the election is considered for some
purposes to begin at an earlier date. It is a question of fact in each case when
an election begins in such a way as to make the parties concerned responsible
for breaches of election law, the test being whether the contest is ‘‘reasonably
imminent’’. Neither the issue of the writ nor the publication of the notice of
election can be looked to as fixing the date when an election begins from this
point of view. Nor, again, does the nomination day effort any criterion. The
election will usually begin at least earlier than the issue of the writ. The
question when the election begins must be carefully distinguished from that as
to when ‘‘the conduct and management of’’ an election may be said to begin.
Again, the question as to when a particular person commences to be a
candidate is a question to be considered in each case.’’ The discussion in this
passage makes it clear that the word “election” can be and has been
appropriately used with reference to the entire process which consists of
several stages and embraces many steps, some of which may have an
important bearing on the result of the process. The next important question to
be considered is what is meant by the words ‘‘no election shall be called in
question.’’ A reference to any treatise on elections in England will show that an
election proceeding in that country is liable to be assailed on very limited
grounds, one of them being the improper rejection of a nomination paper. The
law with which we are concerned is not materially different, and we find that
in section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, one of the
grounds for declaring an election to be void is the improper rejection of a
nomination paper. The question now arises whether the law of elections in this
country contemplates that there should be two attacks on matters connected
with election proceedings, one while they are going on by invoking the
extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution (the ordinary jurisdiction of the courts having been expressly
excluded), and another after they have been completed by means of an
election petition. In my opinion, to affirm such a position would be contrary to
the scheme of Part XV of the Constitution and the Representation of the
People Act, which, as I shall point out later, seems to be that any matter which
has the effect of vitiating an election should be brought up only at the
appropriate stage in an appropriate manner before a special tribunal and
should not be brought up at an intermediate stage before any court. It seems
to me that under the election law, the only significance which the rejection of a
nomination paper has consists in the fact that it can be used as a ground to call
the election in question. Article 329 (b) was apparently enacted to prescribe
the manner in which and the stage at which this ground, and other grounds
which may be raised under the law to call the election in question, could be
urged. I think it follows by necessary implication from the language of this
provision that those grounds cannot be urged in any other manner, at any
other stage and before any other court. If the grounds on which an election
can be called in question could be raised at an earlier stage and errors, if any,
are rectified, there will be no meaning in enacting a provision like Article 329
(b) and in setting up a special tribunal. Any other meaning ascribed to the
words used in the Article would lead to anomalies, which the Constitution
could not have contemplated, one of them being that conflicting views may be
expressed by High Court at the pre-polling stage and by the election tribunal,
which is to be an independent body, at the stage when the matter is brought
up before it.
 CONCLUSION

What is it that makes the Election Commission of India (ECI) a trusted

institution, which performs its functions more effectively than other
institutions of the state? Notions of India as a ‘flailing state’ point at the
dissonance between the strength of higher bureaucracy in drafting policy
and its weakness in implementing them. Others have talked of
‘embedded autonomy’ to puzzle over the bureaucratic state apparatus in
India, which is not embedded enough to have strong networks in civil
society and the dominant classes. The ECI can be seen, however, as an
example of a centralised bureaucratic apparatus which has sustained
itself as an institution where the head is as robust as its limbs in the states
and districts. The robustness of the ECI and its ability to renew itself,
despite flaws in its design, and the influence of the political field, has
largely emerged from its ability to enhance its constitutional powers. The
ECI’s powers of self-regulation and its tendency to consolidate and
enhance its powers have contributed to making the ECI a relatively
autonomous institution, with a distinctive identity deriving from the
democratic logic of the state.
 Reference
1. Oshisanya, O. (2020). "13. Election Law". An Almanac of Contemporary
Judicial Restatements (Civil Law) vol. ii: Almanac vol. ii. Almanac
Basebooks. Almanac Foundation. p. 265. ISBN 978-978-51200-2-8.
2. ^ "How Election Law Grew From a Niche Practice to a Multimillion-
Dollar Draw". National Law Journal. Archived from the original on
2023-06-01. Retrieved 2022-08-26.
3. ^ "Election Litigation Rates Are Soaring". Liebert Pub.
4. ^ Hasen, Richard L. (2022). "Research Note: Record Election Litigation
Rates in the 2020 Election: An Aberration or a Sign of Things to
Come?". Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy. 21 (2): 150–
154. doi:10.1089/elj.2021.0050. S2CID 246930833.
5. ^ Yuh, Grace. "Training a new generation of election law
lawyers". Harvard Law School. Retrieved 2022-08-26.
6. ^ Jump up to:a b Winkler, Adam (2010-12-01). "Introduction to
Lowenstein Festschrift". Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and
Policy. 9 (4): 261–262. doi:10.1089/elj.2010.9402. ISSN 1533-1296.
7. ^ Cain, Bruce (2010). "Foundational wisdom: the scholarship of Daniel
Lowenstein". Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy. 9 (4):
263–272. doi:10.1089/elj.2010.9415. ISSN 1533-1296.
8. ^ Tokaji, Daniel P. (2010-12-01). "Lowenstein Contra Lowenstein:
Conflicts of Interest in Election Administration". Election Law Journal:
Rules, Politics, and Policy. 9 (4): 421–
441. doi:10.1089/elj.2010.9407. ISSN 1533-1296.
9. ^ "Can Donald Trump run for president if charged and convicted of
removing official records?". Tampa Bay Times. Retrieved 2022-08-26.
10.^ Journal, A. B. A. "Could Trump be banned from office if he's convicted
of taking government documents?". ABA Journal. Retrieved 2022-08-26.
11.^ "Election Law Journal | Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.,
publishers". home.liebertpub.com. Retrieved 2022-08-26.
12.^ "Election Law Journal | Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.,
publishers". home.liebertpub.com. Retrieved 2022-08-26.
13.^ Jump up to:a b "Election law a growing area – and good for democracy,
say experts". Legal Futures. August 18, 2022.
14.^ "Den nye norm er, at domstolenegodkender et valgslegitimitet". K
News. August 16, 2022.
15.^ "How Kenya Election Petition Will Strengthen Future Polls". Capital
FM News. August 21, 2022.
16.^ Jump up to:a b "Letter: Court rulings on elections bolster trust in
democracy". Financial Times.
17.^ On the other side, opposite judgement comes when the participation of
the lists has resulted in an imbalance, also because the deviation of the
votes between the two clusters is less than one thousand
ballotts: Buonomo, Giampiero (2001). "La partecipazione (viziata) delle
liste produce uno squilibrio nel voto". Diritto&Giustizia Edizione
Online. Archived from the original on 2012-08-01. Retrieved 2016-03-
19.
18.^ "A principle of separation of powers ( ... ) is the rationale of the law
( ... ) which ousts the administrative courts from ineligibility
dispute": Buonomo, Giampiero (2000). "Il giudicato civile in materia
elettorale preclude l'azione popolare davanti al Tar". Diritto&Giustizia
Edizione Online. Archived from the original on 2012-08-01.
Retrieved 2016-03-19.