Topic
Corrupt practices in Indian elections refer to fraudulent or illegal acts, such as false declarations or non-disclosure of assets in election affidavits, that undermine electoral fairness under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Rajasthan High Court holds that technical irregularities in a candidate’s Form-26 affidavit, absent evidence of corrupt practice, cannot void an election under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act. The ruling reinforces judicial restraint in election disputes, protecting electoral outcomes from procedural hyper-technicalities.
Madras HC reaffirms that challenges to candidate affidavit disclosures must be raised exclusively through election petitions under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Article 329(b) precludes alternative remedies like writ petitions, reinforcing the statutory exclusivity of election disputes.
The High Court has ruled that Section 82 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, strictly limits parties to an election petition to contesting or returned candidates only. Non-candidate officials-even those accused of corrupt practices-cannot be joined as respondents, reinforcing that election petitions are not civil suits and must adhere to statutory exclusivity. This sharpens the boundaries of accountability in electoral disputes and impacts how petitioners structure their claims.
Bombay High Court rules that concealing a partnership firm's tax liabilities in the mandatory Form 26 affidavit under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, amounts to a corrupt practice, warranting trial. The judgment underscores the strict disclosure obligations for election candidates, impacting electoral transparency and accountability.
Bombay HC dismisses election petition for failing to plead specific corrupt practices under Section 83 of the RP Act. The court holds that mere non-disclosure of criminal cases or incomplete affidavit details, without proof of material impact on election outcome, does not constitute grounds for election nullification. Petitioners must provide full particulars of suppression to sustain allegations of corrupt practice.
Karnataka High Court holds that false declaration in Form 26 affidavit regarding assets, property tax dues, and business income constitutes corrupt practice under Section 123(2) of RP Act, 1951.