Ritwik Sharma | Amity Law School, Delhi | 15th October 2019

 ABSTRACT

The main focus of this research is to understand the significance and efficacy of the great Indian election. Elections form the bedrock of every electoral democracy and India is no alien to this practice. Elections in India are conducted with great enthusiasm since the voter turnout is humungous. However, elections in India are far from being perfect and many electoral malpractices are committed not only by the candidates but also by the voters. The government along with the Election Commission of India, over the years, has undertaken key initiatives to make sure the elections are conducted in a free and fair manner.

Legislations like the Representation of the People Act, 1951, Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 and the Model Code of Conduct have ensured that electoral malpractices are curbed and the significance of the voter in an election is maintained. The Research also looks into the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and discusses in detail about the corrupt practices which are committed by the candidates. Furthermore, the efficacy and importance of the Model Code of Conduct is also discussed.

Finally, the research is concluded underlining the importance of having free and fair elections and certain measures which can be undertaken to make the process more robust and trustworthy.

Keywords: Free and Fair Elections, Corrupt Practices, Model Code of Conduct, Election Commission of India

INTRODUCTION

Democratically elected nations postulate free and impartial elections and India being a colossal democracy demands such process. The Constitution of India promises free and fair elections to the citizens of the country and empowers the Election Commission to superintend, control and direct the elections in India.[1] Part XV of the Constitution of lays down the right to vote promised to the citizens and other provisions related to elections in India. In response to that, the Parliament enacted the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Representation of the People Act, 1951 to regulate the conduct of elections. India is the second most populated country in the world and boasts of approximately 90 crore voters. However, Indian voters have a tendency of being swayed away or threatened by the political parties into unconscious voting. The voters are either provided monetary benefits or are simply cautioned. This amounts to electoral practice and inflicts punishment under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and other statutory laws. The Constitution restricts the judicial intervention during the course of elections but the authenticity of the elections may be called into question through a writ petition in the High Court and an appeal can be preferred in the Supreme Court.

The Election Commission is authorised to make sure that equal opportunity is given to all the political parties and candidates to contest an election. The Election Commission has formulated a set of rules called the Model Code of Conduct and it encompasses all the features of campaigning and it has to be meticulously followed by all the political parties. Election Commission also puts cap on the funding of elections at both Union and State level.[2]

In order to conduct transparent elections, the Election Commission allows the media to participate during the electoral process and also permits the media representatives to cover the polling stations and counting centres.

Furthermore, Election Commission has moved over to the ballot paper which proved to be an excruciating task, required funds and there was an inherent fear of misplaced votes. The Election Commission has introduced the concept of electronic voting through the Electronic Voting Machines (EVM) and Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) to conduct elections transparently.

The Election Commission has also introduced the option of None of the Above (NOTA) where a voter can vote for none of the candidates. The concept of NOTA is quite similar to the concept of Right to Recall in an election where a voter declares his displeasure towards all the candidates in a constituency.[3]

It is an undeniable fact that the process of elections in India is vacillating since there are more issues than one can fathom. The Election Commission faces a huge task in eradicating such issues. The Election Commission faces the following problems related to elections:

• Criminalisation of politics.
• Corrupt practices related to elections like bribery
• Undue influence like use of physical force and booth capturing.
• Inciting hatred and violence amongst people of different communities.
• Influencing public officials.
• Defection politics.
• Unlawful activities of unlawful organisations.
• Demanding votes on the basis of religion and caste.
• Expenditure on campaigning exceeding the permissible limit.
• Publication of false statements by the candidates.
• Misuse of Election Machinery.
• Hiring or procuring any vehicle or vessel by the candidate.

There is no doubt that the task faced by the Election Commission is a monumental one when it comes to conducting independent and unprejudiced elections in a country like India. The Commission has been successful to an extent in curbing many issues but there are many problems lingering over the electoral politics which could turn out to be devastating for the future of Indian democracy.

 

1.1 CONDUCT OF FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS IN INDIA

Every society develops and matures over a period of time and so has ours. In this case, the Election Commission of India has evolved not only as an institution of impeccable credibility but also as a gold standard throughout the world to conduct elections. In its long and arduous journey, it has been ably guided by the Supreme Court through significant judgments and the Law Commission through its numerous reports. It has allowed the Election Commission to work more independently and bring numerous changes to the electoral system through various measures.

Abolition of Election Tribunals:

Prior to the year 1966, the Representation of the People Act, 1951 provided for Election Tribunal to adjudicate matters related to elections in India. A three tier structure emerged to decide election petitions which were to be initially decided by the Tribunal, which would then go to the respective High Court and ultimately decided by the Supreme Court of India. However, this modality of dispute settlement consumed time to effectively adjudicate election disputes. The Election Commission in one of its report recommended abolishing Election Tribunals and allowing High Court to handle election disputes. The Government of India after accepting the recommendations made the Election Commission in its Report of the Third General Elections in India in 1962 moved the Constitution (Nineteenth Amendment) Act, 1966. This amendment abolished Election Tribunals and accordingly the jurisdiction to hear election disputes was conferred to the High Court. This was facilitated by adding Section 80A to the Representation of the People Act, 1951. This enabled a smooth conduct of election process without disruption caused by filing of frivolous cases.[4]

Decriminalisation of Politics:

 Decriminalisation of politics means prevention of people having a criminal background or those involved in criminal offences to enter into political arena. Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 provides for disqualifications to stand for election in case of conviction on certain grounds. Thus, to prevent criminalisation of politics, it was necessary to know about such people involved in criminal cases so as to prevent them from entering the political frame.[5] Accordingly, the Supreme Court of India in the year 2002 in a landmark judgment in the case of Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms[6] directed the Election Commission to call for information on affidavit under Article 324 of the Indian Constitution on criminal background including previous conviction, acquittal or discharge along with fine; declaration of assets of the candidate and his/her spouse along with number of dependants; liabilities including debts owed to any financial institution or otherwise; and educational qualification of the candidate. This historic judgment increased awareness among voters about the potential candidates from their respective constituencies. Again in the year 2005, the Supreme Court in Ramesh Dalal v. Union of India[7] declared that a sitting Member of Parliament (MP) or Member of State Legislative Assembly (MLA) shall also be subject to disqualification from contesting elections if he is convicted and sentenced to not less than 2 years of imprisonment by court of law. These judgments effectively disallowed people having criminal background to enter political field.

The Supreme Court in the case of Public Interest Foundation and Ors. v. Union of India and Anotherrequested the Law Commission to expedite recommendation on the following issues:

• Whether disqualification should be triggered upon conviction or upon framing of charges by the court or upon the presentation of the report by the investigating officer.
• Whether filing of false affidavits under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 should be a ground for disqualification.

Law Commission of India in its 244^th Report did not favour electoral disqualification at the stage of filing of the police report simply because of lack of sufficient application of judicial mind at this stage as it can be easily misused against rival political parties. However, the Law Commission did favour electoral disqualification at the stage of framing of charges with adequate legal security. Thus, even Law Commission in its report has suggested measures to curb criminalisation of politics which will further help in cleaning our electoral process.[8]

Introduction of Electronic Voting Machines (EVM):

In India, Electronic voting Machines (EVM) were introduced to be used on an experimental basis for the first time in sixteen selected Assembly Constituencies in the States of Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and NCT of Delhi in their respective Legislative Assemblies held in November, 1998. The use of EVM was further expanded to 46 Parliamentary Constituencies in 1999 Lok Sabha elections. EVMs were then used in four consecutive elections of Lok Sabha conducted in 2004, 2009, 2014 and 2019. Use of EVM in the electoral process led to a more transparent process of conduct of elections. It saved government`s expenditure from printing papers used in the earlier process for conduct of elections. Use of EVM also saved time and relentless painstaking human effort in counting votes. Thus, electronic counting of votes has reduced the number of invalid votes due to human negligence or malpractice. EVMs thus reflect the choice of the voters more transparently and have effectively ensured a cleaner and more transparent process of counting of votes.[9]

Use of Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT):

VVPAT is a method to know with certainty that the vote casted has gone to the desired candidate. Under VVPAT, a printer like apparatus is linked to Electronic Voting Machine (EVM). When a vote is cast, a receipt is generated showing the serial number, name and symbol of the candidate for whom the vote was casted. It confirms the vote and the voter can verify the details. In a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the year 2013, the Supreme Court of India directed the Election Commission to introduce VVPAT in a phased manner, thus, accordingly ECI started using VVPAT at selected constituencies for elections to State Assemblies and also in the General Elections in 2014. However, in the recent Court directive, VVPAT was used in the entire constituency of Gujarat. Election Commission has also confirmed that VVPAT shall be used in all the parliamentary constituencies for the conduct of elections to Lok Sabha in 2019.[10]

None of the Above (NOTA):

Supreme Court in the case of People`s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India[11] in 2013 had allowed the use of None of the Above (NOTA) option for the 2014 Lok Sabha elections. Election Commission in its notification dated 24^th January, 2014 had made the use of NOTA mandatory for elections to Rajya Sabha. Thus, the use of NOTA in any constituency reflects the desires and choices of voters that they were dissatisfied with the candidates fielded by the political parties. As of now, the votes casted for NOTA do not have electoral significance. However, votes casted for NOTA do not amount to Right to reject. Law Commission in its 225^th Report has rejected the concept of extending NOTA to Right to reject and has recommended introducing the concept of Right to reject at a future date. Thus, the use of NOTA is another evolution in the electoral process as it allows voters the right to protest even though without having any electoral significance.[12]

Establishment of Special Courts:

The Supreme Court in 2016 had asked the Central Government to frame a central scheme for setting up Special Courts on the line of fast track courts exclusively to expedite the trial of people from political background involved in criminal cases within a year. Politicians when involved in a criminal case use their political influence and power to affect the proceedings of law by creating impediments at different process of investigation. This affects the continuous trial due to such disruption. Thus, the whole idea is to remove the political or bureaucratic influence exerted during investigation while the case is being pursued in a Court of Law. The Law Commission in its 244^th Report has mentioned about the National Commission to Review of Working of the Constitution (2002) where it had recommended setting up of Special Court at the level of High Courts to interpret the legality of charges framed against potential candidates and adjudicate the cases in a limited time frame. The Central Government has accordingly proposed to set up twelve special courts to dispose of cases pending against Member of Parliament and State Legislative Assemblies within a year. This will not only complete the ongoing cases within a scheduled timeframe but will effectively either convict or acquit such persons involved in criminal cases.[13]

Curbing Political Funding:

In an effort to make the process of electoral funding more transparent, Finance Act of 2017 had introduced the use of electoral bonds, which is exempt from disclosure under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Political parties will be entitled to receive donations by cheque or digital mode from their donors. This will effectively stop disbursement of cash to political parties by companies or other organisations. Finance Act of 2017 amended Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 to enable the issuance of `Electoral Bonds` which a donor can buy from authorised banks against cheque or digital payments only. Such bonds shall be redeemable only in the designated account of a registered political party. Finance Act, 2017 further amended the Companies Act, 2013 and relaxed funding norms for corporate. The amendment has abolished the previous limit on donation which prohibited companies from donating more than 7.5% of their average net profit to a political party. The companies are also no longer needed to disclose the name of the party to which the donation has been made. Finance Act, 2016 had amended the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA), 2010 to permit foreign companies and subsidiaries in India to fund political parties in India. Thus, the government in a way has tried to regulate political funding through the introduction of electoral bonds.[14]

The success of any democratic country lies in the success of the development and evolution of its institutions and organisations and their adherence to the principle of rule of law. India since Independence has not only evolved but also matured as a civilised democracy and is reflected through the growth of its institutions and their respect for the rule of law. Election Commission as an institution to conduct election has also evolved and so have the laws governing elections in India. The changing law with respect to conduct of fair and transparent elections is a signal of a thriving and dynamic society which is ready to change for the betterment of its people.

 

1.2 CORRUPT PRACTICES

Independent and impartial elections form the fulcrum of a democracy and any tangential intervention, be it governmental or non-governmental, vitiates the electoral process. This intervention can be in the form of cheating, bribing, disturbing the government machinery etc. An election is likely to be challenged to the grounds that it’s either influenced through corrupt practices or when a member is disqualified and such questions are raised by either the defeated candidate or any of the electors before the court of law as it is against the Constitutional mandate.[15]

A reliable electoral system integrated with an unbiased electoral machinery forms a pertinent feature of a free and fair elections in a democracy. It is important to note that contesting candidates and do their party workers do not commit electoral malpractices to swing the results into their favour.

Supreme Court and Corrupt Practices under the RP Act, 1951

The Supreme Court while adjudicating cases under the Representation of the Peoples Act asserted that all the eight practices described in the act[16] fall under the following categories

• Practices which are committed using physical force or abuse of political power like bribery, undue influence, booth capturing, violence, threatening.
• Practice which are committed through the use of money like bribery, spending beyond permissible limit and movement of voters.
• Practices which are committed through fake propaganda like false accusations, making defamatory remarks, fuelling detestation and violence between the members of two communities and demanding votes on the basis of religion.

The cases adjudicated by the Supreme Court are mainly on the following matters:

Offering Bribery:

 Since election is an exorbitant affair in India and candidates splash a lot of money in order to win a election and in doing so they offer money to voters and request them to vote in their favour. Occasions are in abundance when it comes to candidates buying votes from poor people since India is a poverty stricken nation. The Supreme Court held in the case of Om Prakash v. Lal Chand[17] that there are various grounds on which a charge of bribe comes under the purview of corrupt practice and these grounds are:

• The bribe must be given by the candidate or his agent or any other person on his behalf.
• The bribe must be offered with the consent of the candidate or his agent.
• That the bribe is offered with the objective of influencing the voters or sways a candidate to participate or not participate in the election.

In the abovementioned case the Supreme Court held that giving bribe to the voters comes under the scope of these ingredients. Similarly, in the case of Raman Bhai v. Jaswant Singh[18], the Supreme Court quashed the election when the accused was found guilty of bribing the polling officer under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Threatening the Election Officers:

Security is highly important during the process of elections as masses arrive to cast their vote at the polling stations. Election Officers are empowered to superintend the elections at the polling stations and a threat to such officers is considered a threat to the process of free and fair elections. A lot of such incidents related to threatening of Election Officers have been witnessed over the years particularly in states like Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and the Naxal prone areas.  It is pertinent to note that alarming the Election Officers amounts to corrupt practice and is punishable under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The Supreme Court in the case of Har Swaroop v. Brij Bhushan[19] held that threatening of Poll Officers invites punishment under Section 123 of the RPA, 1951. In the abovementioned case, the accused threatened the Election Officers and his election was quashed under the RPA Act, 1951. This Supreme Court judgment ensures greater security of the Election Officers posted at the polling stations.

Hiring and procuring vehicles to carry voters:

During elections in India, vehicles are provided by the candidates to the voters, predominantly in village areas, to arrive at the polling booth and cast their vote. This incentive is provided by the candidate in order to earn the voter`s trust. The RP Act, 1951 prohibits the transportation of voters by the candidates to the polling booths and further Sections 123(5) and 83 of the same act terms it a corrupt practice and it is punishable by the law. The question involved in the case of R.M. Seshadri v. G.V. Pai[20] was whether the respondent is liable under the RP Act, 1951 for carrying voters in a motor vehicle? The Supreme Court held that carrying voters to polling stations and requesting votes from them amounts to corrupt practice under this act and invites punishment. Subsequently, the Court quashed the election of the respondent.

Electioneering on the basis of Religion:

There is a famous proverb in the Indian politics that, “in India you don’t cast your vote, you vote your caste“. Religion and caste are deeply engraved in the conscience of the Indian masses and the politicians do not miss any opportunity to sway the voters using such tricks. People in India are usually biased towards their religion or caste and choose to vote candidates belonging from their caste without giving any thought to the merit of the candidate. On the other hand, politicians do not leave any stone unturned in order to garner votes from the people. Over the years, requesting votes on the basis of religion has become frequent and it has become a headache for the Election Commission to counter this. Representatives elected on merit instead of religion or caste is significant for a democracy and poses a warning to the secular structure of our nation. Canvassing on the basis of religion is prohibited under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. In the case of Mohammad Koya v. Muthu Koya[21] the Supreme Court held that mockery of any religion through publication which may hurt the sentiments of any religion is prohibited and amounts to corrupt practice. It is notable in this context that communal politics leads to communal violence.

In the above context, it is important to know the stance of the Supreme Court in the case of Manohar Joshi v. Nitin Bhaurao Patil[22]and the points forwarded in this case:

• Whether speeches made by the leaders of the political parties i.e persons other than the candidate or his agent with the required consent of such candidate amount to corrupt practices
• Whether the concept of `Hindutva` is similar to Hinduism.
• Whether the election of Manohar Joshi is void as per the provisions of the RP Act, 1951 and invites punishment under the same on the grounds of propagating Hindutva ideology during the electioneering. The Bombay High Court declared his election void under Section 100 9(1) 9(b) of the RP Act, 1951. The Court noted that the speeches made during the election campaign amount to corrupt practices under the act.

After the case was appealed to the Supreme Court, a contrary view on the concept of Hindutva was taken by the Supreme Court.

According to the Supreme Court, no corrupt practice was perpetrated by the candidate or his designated agent and every corrupt practice is committed on the basis of the speeches on the grounds of religion without the required consent of the candidate. The Court also endorsed that if a corrupt practice is committed by any other person apart from the candidate or his agent without the consent and thus materially affecting the election. The Court also discerned that the candidate would not get the convenience of the corrupt practice committed in his interests by any one of the outcome of the election is show to be markedly overblown. The Court, observing the usage of the plank of Hindutva during the elections by the candidate, held that it had already deliberated the matter connected to this issue in the case of Bal Thackeray v. Prabhakar K. Kunte[23] and the word `Hindutva` invariably does not mean Hindu religion and it is the manner of its use which is important for adjudicating the meaning of the term.[24] The Court in the Bal Thackeray case held that the so-called plank of the political party may at best be germane for admiration of the context in which the speech was made by the leader of the political party during the electioneering, but no more for the intention of asserting corrupt practice against a candidate. It is undoubtedly demonstrating the view of the Supreme Court that usage of the world `Hindutva` during canvassing does not attract punishment under the provisions of Representation of the People Act, 1951.

The Supreme Court in this case declared that the Bombay High Court was unsuccessful in valuing the asseveration of the petitioner that the only allegation of corrupt practice in this election which raised the issue is as mentioned above and rest of the general averments lacking in the key parts of the corrupt practice did not constitute the full cause of action. And in the opinion of the court, it is the fallacious interpretation of the High Court which has resulted in the severe committed during the trial of the case.

The Court also held that no notice was forwarded to Bal Thackeray or Pramod Mahajan or any other persons against whom allegations were made of committing corrupt practices, even though the High Court has declared those corrupt practices to be proved for the purpose of deciding the appellant`s election to be void on the ground mentioned under Section 100 (1) (b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The Supreme Court divulged the consequences of the combined reading of Sections 98 and 99 of the same Act and the requirement of the notice under Section 99 to all such persons before decision of the election petition by making an order under Section 99 of the Act. The Court further established that the combined effect of deciphering Section 98 and 99 of the Act demonstrates the inference made by and this is also substantiated by the by the likely result of a different interpretation which is a ludicrous and must be rejected. According to the Supreme Court, the Bombay High Court ignored the obvious position in law taking a distinct view. No notice under 99 of the Act was given by the High Court before making the final order under Section 98 of the RP Act, 1951 announcing the election of the petitioner to be void, as a serious flaw. 

As a consequence of the abovementioned findings, the Supreme Court noticed that the finding recorded by the Bombay High Court against the appellant that the charge or corrupt practice under Section 123 (3) and (3-A) of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951 has been proved to quash the election on the ground contained in Section 100 (1) (b) of the Act is antithetical to law and therefore, set aside the verdict of the High Court and subsequently upheld the election of the petitioner.[25]

CRITICISM OF THE DECISION

The decision of the Supreme Court met with vehement condemnation by the public at large solely on the scrutiny of the Court that the concept of `Hindutva` cannot be equated with the concept of Hindu religion and electioneering using the plank of Hindutva is not a corrupt practice under Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Numerous questions have been raised by the Supreme Court in this case. The Court recorded the allegation that the petitioner himself said in an election meeting on 24^th February, 1990 that “the first Hindu state will be established in Maharashtra“. But the Court interpreted that it`s not an appeal but a mere expression by the petitioner.

The Court did not quiet meet its point in the judgment, instead it shifted the discourse to Section 100 (i) (d) (ii) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. This is an additional ground on which an election can be quashed by the Court and requires the election petitioner to establish that the election has been materially affected by corrupt practice.  

The judgment created confusion amongst the scholars on the concept of secularism, pluralism and humanism. The Supreme Court`s verdict can be seen from different perspectives. It can be seen as a warning to the concept of Hindu Rashtra. However, this judgment may be seen as an anomaly instead of a representation of a trend. It can be considered a coherent swing. Sometimes in their judgments the Courts tend to rove in the fields of Sociology, Philosophy etc. The Supreme Court Judges are people of vast knowledge and integrity.

In this case, it did not seem requisite for the Court to elucidate the concept of Hinduism. If the Court wished to enter into the discussion of the implication of the concept of Hindutva it would have required a plethora of intellect and patience which was not corroborated in the Court`s judgment. The Hindutva judgments show an increasing aptness towards the B.J.P. – R.S.S. paradigm. It is a huge warning to the secular and pluralistic framework of the country.[26]

In the above context, few excerpts from the case of Dr. Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo v. Prabhakar Kashinath Kunte[27] need to be examined:

“Ordinarily, the concept of Hindutva is understood to be a way of life or a state of mind and must not be equated with the Hindu religion.“

This statement seems to be correct. But the Court says considering the term `Hindutva or `Hinduism` per se as illustrating hostility or hatred amongst other religious faith and therefore, this approach of the Court seems contrary to the secular structure and the basic principle of the Indian Constitution.

Furthermore, the Court has held that the dictions recited by Bal Thackeray which were brought on record amounted to an appeal to voters on the grounds of religion and one of the speeches recited by him also led to a feeling of hatred between Hindus and Muslims. Was it obligatory for them to make general statements on Hinduism and give respectability to Hindutva by connoting it with Hinduism?

The Court`s judgment reflects on a general scepticism on issues involving secularism, communalism and appeal to religion. This hesitation originates from; not differentiating between the essence of norms they may apply to:

• Individuals in their private life.
• Civil society in its entirety.
• The State, including individuals.

The judgments of Supreme Court on religious affairs and secularism have been a subject of heated debate. In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India[28], the Supreme Court took a robust stand on the secular structure of the Constitution, when it comes to a wider application of which a strong position of matters with religiously schismatic nuances the court`s record is in consistent. Before the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992, the Court allowed the Karseva to be conducted there presuming the permission had to be granted it seems the conditions imposed upon the B.J.P. government in U.P., were inadequate and should have been augmented, preferably from the central government which would have protected its allegiance and entanglement. This is open to the charge that is criticism by understanding. There is need to admire that the norms are expected to be applied in the case of individuals and their public role as the aspirants for entry into Constitutional institutions have been increased by the elections laws to a level similar to the rules expected from the state itself.

In a recent judgment in the case of Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen[29], a seven Judge bench of the Supreme Court held that the concept of religion is a relationship between god and man. The Supreme Court did not divulge into its previous judgment in the Manohar Joshi case where a three judge bench held that Hindutva and Hinduism are distinct concepts. In the current judgment, the Supreme Court elaborated that electioneering on the basis of religion is a corrupt practice under Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act. The Court said that, “Election is a secular practice and therefore a process should be adopted. The relationship between man and god is personal choice and state should be aware of it.“[30]

This judgment prohibits any candidate or his agent to propagate his religion during the election campaign and the same would attract punishment under the RP Act, 1951.

The Court stated that the key aim of Section 123(3) of the RP Act, 1951 is to curb communal and separatists tendencies in the nation. It was also noted that canvassing on the basis of the religion is disservice to the voters and against the public interest.

Illicit Activities of Unlawful Organisations:

In the case of Jamaat-e-Islamia Hind v. Union of India[31] the Court studied the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 to decide whether an organisation is lawful or not. The Government formulated a notice on December 10, 1992 under Sections 2 and 3 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 pronouncing that the Jamaat-e-Islamia , the appellant association is an unlawful organisation as per facts of the case. A Reference was made by the Central Government to the Tribunal for adjudication under Section 4 of UAPA, 1967. In the inquiry before the Tribunal, the only evidence produced by the Central Government on the basis of some intelligence reports and affidavits of the Central Government. The Tribunal came to a decision and issued an order bestowing the notification promulgated by the Central Government under Section 3 of the Act against Jamaat-e-Islamia Hind as an unlawful organisation.

On appeal the appellant asserted that before issuing the notification designating that their association is an unlawful association the Central Government did not adhere to any principles of natural justice, to the requirements of, to safeguard public interest ensuring the rights and freedoms pledged under the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court held that non-disclosure of information or any notice to the appellant by the respondent is clear violation of principles of natural justice which are to be followed while issuing a notice. The Court in this case went through clauses (f) and (g) of Section 2 of the UAPA, 1967 and made it clear that the divination of the question whether by the association is, or has become an unlawful association to justify a declaration under Section 3(1) should be that nay action taken by such association establishes an unlawful activity which is an object of the association and the object is any activity punishable under the Indian Penal Code, 1860[32]. The Court declared that the allegations made by the Government towards the association were completely false. In the view of the declaration the constitutionality of the said notification was declared void and the order of the Tribunal was rescinded.[33]

Acquiring the support of Government Officials:

The Supreme Court in the case of Dhartipakar v. Rajiv Gandhi[34] explained whether obtaining the assistance of any government servant during the election process amounts to corrupt practice under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The Court held that, in order to constitute a corrupt practice under Section 123 (7) of the RP Act 1951, the petition should determine the measure of assistance, mode of assistance and all the other facts, to establish the charge of corrupt practice of using the services and liaisoning of the government officials and the petition must state the precise time of assistance, service, manner of assistance and the persons from whom the assistance was procured by the candidate. The same was held in the case of Haridwarlilal v. Kanwal Singh[35]. In the Rajiv Gandhi case, the appellant was unable to prove the allegations. As a result, the Court acquitted Rajiv Gandhi in this case and upheld his election.

The Supreme Court has made it crystal clear that whenever there is an allegation of corrupt practice, the petition shall state all the details and a concise statement of all the material facts of the case and also set forth all the particulars of the corrupt practices alleged by the petitioner. In the case of U.S. Sasidharan v. K. Karunakaran[36], the appellant filed an election petition questioning the election of the respondent of the grounds of corrupt practices. One of them is that at the prompting of the first respondent a video cassette showing the development of the constituency in which two government servants had spoken. The first respondent opposed that election petition stating that a copy of the video cassette was not given to him as well as a copy of the election petition and hence the petition must stand dismissed under Section 86(1) for non-compliance with Section 81 (3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The High Court accepted the contentions of the respondent and dismissed the election petition.

On Appeal to the Supreme Court, the Court referred the case of Satyanarayana v. Dhuja Ram[37]where right to challenge was conferred on the Act. At the same time, the procedure endorsed by the act for summoning the election petition must be followed. The plea of the respondent that the concerned case and the Supreme Court maintained that the allegation of the petitioner was not substantial and the Supreme Court declared that the speeches of the two government servants related to the progress in the constituency will not constitute corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123 (7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The Court also reiterated that to attract punishment under Section 123 (7) of the RP Act, 1951, the recitals of the government servants as recorded and alleged to be used in the constituency at the prompting of the respondent, must be with a view to obtaining, abetting or attempting to the assistance of the government officials during the election process for the furtherance of the outlook of the respondent. As a result, the Supreme Court confirmed the judgment of the High Court dismissing the election petition of the appellant.[38]

Embezzlement of Government Machinery:

It is usually alleged that the government in power misuse the government machinery to tilt the electoral process in their favour in order to win the elections in a constituency. The embezzlement of the government machinery can be in different forms and includes advertisements out of the government funds, using government vehicles for election purposes, showcasing their accomplishments using government funds and expenditure for personal use of the ministers. Such embezzlement gives unjust edge to the party in power at the time of elections. The seriousness to the misappropriation of public funds to increasing the chances of the candidates of a particular party. Some of the illustrations of embezzlement of the government machinery and power which were either perturbed in Courts or have come in far detrimental judicial notice are provided as follows:

• Programme for public welfare being launched just before the elections.
• Expenditure incurred by the Ministers out of the discretionary funds at their disposal on the eve of elections.[39]
• Formation of platforms and provision of other benefits at government expense.[40]
• Use of translation attached to DAVP and AIR for getting election manifesto printed and for obtaining election posters for rallies.

Election Expenditure:

The funds incurred by the candidates during the electoral process are scrupulously systemized and audited by the special observers appoint by the Election Commission. The Election Commission has made it mandatory that each and every candidate must submit their returns to special audit party appointed by the Election Commission to circumvent money power in the elections. In order to prove corrupt practice the petitioner must not only prove that the expenditure has been incurred in excess to the prescribed limit set by the Election Commission but he must also prove that such expenditure has incurred with the consent of the candidate or his agent.

In all the democratic nations, the election expenditure is regulated by statutory laws of that country. Usually a limit is fixed beyond which expenses cannot be incurred. The limit is fixed to bridge the gap between the rich and the poor parties contesting elections. In India, every candidate must file a return of his accounts and expenses just after the announcement of the result of the election.

Allegations of corrupt practice were made by the respondent in the case of Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain[41]. Justice Beg pointed out that there was no evidence that the party was the agent of the candidate or acting as a medium through which any money was spent by her.

In the case of M. Karunanidhi v. Dr. H.V. Hande[42] the Supreme Court admitted the plea of the petitioner on the charges of corrupt practices under Section 123 (6) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 that the respondent Dr. Hande placed fancy banners throughout the constituency and the number of such banners was around 50. Along with the petition a photo of the banner was affixed by the petitioner. The expenditure of placing those banners was Rs. 50,000. It was submitted that the respondent had incurred the expenditure which was added to the amount disclosed in the returns filed by the respondent exceeded the prescribed limit set under Section 77 (3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The Court in this case declared that it amounted to corrupt practice under the charges of excessive expenditure under Section 123 (6) of the RP Act, 1951 and quashed the election of Dr. Hande.[43]

Rigging:

 Booth capturing and Election Rigging are often used interchangeably. The literal meaning of the word `rig` is to improvise or manipulate in a fraudulent manner. But in the context of Indian Election, according former CEC S.P. Sen Kumar, rigging refers to:

“When people speak about rigging during the electoral process, that generally means that a corrupt practice has been committed in a constituency in a systematic and pre planned manner with the aid and consent of the ruling party , either acting individually or aided by the Election Commission itself. Rigging is used in the used in the press by the politicians.“

Rigging exists in various forms. Bogus voting is a form of rigging common in India. It is more widespread in urban areas; in rural areas familiarity instills fear of being caught red handed in the act. The outlook of allowing agents of the candidates at polling booths is to keep an eye on bogus voting and it is nearly impossible to identify voters in elections held in urban areas.

In Nagaland, for example, voting by school students is a frequent occurrence during elections. Teachers are the instigators and they enrol all their students as voters and register their votes on the polling day. This is a major reason behind Nagaland`s massive electorate which stands at 75% against the national average of just over 50%.

Double enrolment is also very frequent during elections in India. People having their residence in rural areas but their place of work in urban areas register themselves in both the places. Printing unsanctioned ballot papers and using them in elections amounts to Rigging. Such a contention was raised during the 1983 Jammu and Kashmir Assembly polls. Snatching ballot boxes in transit is a common instance in Northern states of India despite the presence of the government officials and the agents of the candidates.[44]

Publishing erroneous and defamatory statements:

The publication of any erroneous statement in relation to a rival candidate is treated as a corrupt practice under Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The purpose of this Section is to see that the unethical and abhorrent propaganda in the election campaign is avoided. Such false statements in order to under the ambit of this provision must be made by the candidate or his agent. Also, such statement must be false or believed to be false by the publisher. Such published statement must be in relation to the personal character, conduct, or in regard to the candidature or withdrawal of the candidate and must reasonably affect the candidate`s prospects of winning the election. In other words, in order to prove that the corrupt practice of the above kind it must be proved that:

• There must be a publication of a definite statement by the candidate or his election agent or any other person with the consent of the candidate or his election agent.
• The statement must be erroneous.
• The publisher must believed it be false or must not believe it to be true.
• It must rationally prejudice the prospects of the candidate`s election.[45]

Any bonafide statement[46] of fact which the publisher believes to be true or any statement in relation to the public conduct[47] of a candidate in disparity to his character or conduct would not amount to corrupt practice under the RP Act, 1951.  It is difficult to decipher the allegations which amount to corrupt practice under the provisions of the act as it is difficult to ascertain the circumstances and the setting under which the act has been committed.

Undue Influence:

Section 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 talks about Undue Influence as a corrupt practice.Undue influence, as per law, is broad in its term and ponders four different forms of interference with the independent exercise of any electoral right namely, direct interference, indirect interference, direct attempt at interference and indirect attempt at interference. Electoral right means right of a person to contest or not contest an election or to withdraw or not to withdraw his or her candidature or to vote or to refrain from voting in an election.[48] Any intrusion of that right or attempt to intrusion amounts to corrupt practice under the provisions of the RP Act, 1951. However, such intrusion must be with the consent of the candidate or his election agent.

This definition of election law is more expansive than the definition of the same expression in the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as words like `direct` and `indirect` are not mentioned in the Code.[49]

Undue influence is used differently from proper influence which can be secured through sentiment and warmth. A friendly recommendation or an influence emanating from appreciation is not undue influence unless the functioning of a free mind is disrupted.

A leader of a political party is permitted to declare the policy of the party to the public and ask the electorate to vote without violating any electoral right and such pleas would not amount to undue influence and hence, would not attract punishment under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. However, there a thin line of intervention and if its breached it may amount to undue influence.

Similarly, spiritual heads and religious leaders may help in electioneering for the candidates. But where the spiritual leader or religious head leaves no choice to the electors through writing or speeches but to vote for a particular candidate, it shall amount to undue influence under the provisions of the act.[50]

1.3 INFRINGEMENT OF THE MODEL CODE OF CONDUCT

The Model Code of Conduct (MCC) is enforced as soon as the election schedule is announced in any constituency. Model Code of Conduct is a set of instruction which must be followed by the political parties and their candidates during the electoral process and it is strictly implemented by the Election Commission of India across all the states. Model Code of Conduct is a set of directions on campaigning, general conduct of the candidates, party meetings etc. The Model Code of Conduct functions till the electoral process is finished.

The Election Commission of India has made it clear that any statements made in favour of the minorities regarding reservation before the elections would be a violation of Model Code of Conduct.

The aim of the judicial system should be coy and meet the demands of the citizens by proper rationale for common good as mentioned in the Indian Constitution. All Sections of the society must contribute in this process. Since the majority of the people in the country are illiterate or poor, the present political atmosphere of the country is unable to meet the ever increasing demands of the people. It is widely believed that the success of a democracy depends on the conduct of free and fair elections.

It must be discerned that the election law does not emanate from the Election Commission but establishes it. The Election Commission is a high functionary but has no judicial expertise for legal training. The Election Commission has the power to adjudicate all the cases related to symbols in India.

The Election Commission of India, in its power, adjudicated all the cases related to issues of symbols of different political parties namely Janata Dal and BJP in the past. Even BJP was allowed to use its “Lotus“ symbol in the 1991 General Elections. A petition was filed by a Congress leader to derecognize the symbol under Section 29-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Though the Election Commission restrained its judgment till the elections were over and BJP was allowed to ameliorate the election symbol in the elections.

An election petition is a statutory proceeding to which neither the common law nor the general principles of equity are applicable. The statute there is no right to elect, no right to be elected and no right to dispute an election.[51]

Rules of procedure are generally enacted to provide justice and safeguarding the rights of the parties. It is the general rule of interpretation that procedural enactments should be interpreted courteously and in such manner as to render the enforcement of substantive rights effective. Even where the status is compulsory in terms, it is satisfied if there is sufficient compliance. Courts may look into the legislative history and the intention of the legislature but always bearing in mind that objective is best conveyed in words used. The courts must not intervene in the field of legislature while finding out the legislative intent. Though, in some cases the court is bound to do in order to discover the perversity not provided in the old law and sought to be remedied by the new statute. In the case of Kanhiya Lal Omar v. R.K. Trivedi[52] the Constitutional validity of the Election symbols was challenged under Article 32. The main contention of the petitioner was that legislative powers cannot be conferred on the Election Commission to pass an order.

This argument was rejected by the Supreme Court on two grounds:

• The Election Commission issued the election symbols order in pursuance of the rules formulated by the Central Government under Section 169 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 for carrying out its motive. Rule 5 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 makes it mandatory for the Commission designate symbols for elections. Rule 10(4) of the Election Rules, 1961 authorizes the Commission to issue special and general directions to retiring officers in regard to allotment of symbols. Such allotment must be in conformity with the directions. Under Rule 10(5), the Commission can amend the allotment of a symbol by the returning officers if the allotment is not consistent to the directions issued by the Commission. It is clearly visible that in such matters the Commission has sweeping powers to issue orders.
• Another repulsive reason emerges in regard to the contradiction between Article 324 and 327 that the ultimate power to make laws is vested in the Parliament under Article 327 of the Indian Constitution. However, the opening words of this provision are, “subject to the provisions of the Constitution“. Such a clause simply means that any law made by the Parliament in exercise of powers conferred under Article 327 could be subject to the other provisions of the Constitution, including Article 324. Therefore, the Election Commission is fully authorized to issue orders related to election symbols.

Actuality teaches us that power and its Constitutional limitations must be examined by the irrational ability or diversion in arbitrary and dynamic hands especially a land where poverty and illiteracy is widespread.[53]

An election may be challenged on the justification that a candidate, otherwise qualified for a seat, was returned by the persons, some of whom were not entitled. To arouse public credence in the verdict of ballot box, it is necessary to have a quick, impartial and inexpensive adjudication of election cases, through machinery controlled by persons having judicial mettle and virtue.[54]

CONCLUSION

Free and impartial elections are fundamental to the functioning of a healthy democracy and an indicator of its magnitude and spirit. The Election Commission must be free from any influence by the Executive and the Legislature. It must secure impartiality to all the political parties and candidates. The Election Commission is empowered with the entire administration of conducting elections and directing the officers and other personnel involved in the preparation and management of electoral rolls. The position of the Election Commission is equivalent to the Judge of the Supreme Court when it comes to independence of authority. Therefore, the Commission has earned plaudits from both home and abroad.

The Election Commission has exposed the myth between education and political participation by ensuring free and fair elections across the country. Though, corrupt practices and corruption still persist in our country but Election Commission has done a commendable job to curb them to an extent. The incapability of the current law which has been unsuccessful in meeting the originality of candidates to evade the limit on expenditure is partly due to the low ceiling as prescribed by the law.

The Election Commission has taken numerous steps to curb the impact of criminals in politics. Electoral malpractices have reduced over the years but the impact of communalism and casteism is still widespread. It is mainly in three forms:

• Dissemination of government resources
• Selection of Ministries and government officials.
• Vote Bank politics on the basis of religion and caste.

There are provisions in the Representation of the People Act, 1951 which attract punishment for candidates engaged in vote bank politics. Unfortunately, these provisions are not effectively enforced due to lack of political acumen and pending litigation. Moreover, these laws are only applicable to the victorious candidates. However, it is very tough to enforce law in the absence of clarity of the term communalism. It is tough because the appeal to narrow emotions can vary from rudimentary and direct to indirect ways and judgments on such matters may be reduced to mere opinion or interpretation.

Many political parties still encourage the addition of criminals in their organisations and this can only be countered when the society starts raising its voice towards these people. Otherwise no electoral reform will effective in curbing the menace of criminalisation of politics. Furthermore, the political parties must take the initiative of rejecting all the candidates having criminal background and reduce illegal funding from unknown sources.

The reforms have a substantial effect in reducing money and muscle power, but may not be sustainable for a longer period of time. At times they can be counterproductive. The society must come forward and raise concern against such evil malpractices. Criminalisation of politics in India has reached a threshold and must be addressed by the citizens, government and the political parties. Politics in India has been given a new meaning altogether as it is not longer a platform for providing social service but a lucrative business opportunity for some to evade crime and earn money from illicit sources without facing the wrath of the law. Criminals in politics are threatening the very foundations of the Indian democracy.

Corruption in India is due to many reasons and politicians are one of them. It is not the outcome of the political system as such. Constitution is what people make of it. Attempts have been made to defeat the principles of the Constitution and the rule of law. On the positive side, the political and administrative institutions are still strong and independent to some extent and still hold the key to our flourishing democracy. Supreme Court, High Courts, Comptroller and Auditor General, Election Commission, Union Public Service Commission, National Human Rights Commission and Central Vigilance Commission have proved their mettle over the years.

The civil society has scored over many obstacles and determinedly challenged cases pertaining to the rights of the dispossessed, weaker Sections, gender discrimination and corrupt practices. It has been successful is securing transparency in electoral process by declaring the background of the candidates involving education, criminal records and assets.

Media too, has played an important role in galvanising the attempt to curb electoral malpractices and enlightening the masses to fight against the menace of corrupt practice. An active media challenges the accountability of the government in a country like India. However, there has been a paradigm shift in the functioning of media. Ethics of journalism has taken a back seat in the evolving media scenario. Journalists have to be more vigilant and rational in dealing with such political menace in the country.

It is absolutely clear that the work Election Commission has done over the years is nothing short of spectacular considering the magnitude of the task at hand. Conducting elections in a country like India is not an easy task. Election Commission has achieved considerable success when it comes to demarcation of constituencies, electoral process involving preparation of the electoral rolls, election expenditure etc. The Commission has achieved peerless success in these areas and have received plaudits for their achievement.

On the other hand, when it comes to curtailing electoral malpractices and corruption, the task of the Commission has been hindered by the Executive and Legislative interference. Still the
Commission has managed to reduce such practices to a great extent. The work Commission has done over the years is almost impossible to replicate.

In order to achieve unprecedented success, the Commission needs help from the government and the citizens as well as other organisations in the country.  

---

[1] Art. 324 of the CONSTITUTION 

[2] “The guardians of free and fair elections“, http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-in-school/the-guardians-of-free-and-fair-elections/article5750971.ece, March 5, 2014

[3] HT Correspondent, “10 things to know about NOTA – a voters right to reject“, https://www.hindustantimes.com/india/10-things-to-know-about-nota-a-voter-s-right-to-reject/story-SkX0EsDQbjG5e2sz0L5N9H.html, May 14, 2014

[4] Peu Ghosh, Indian Government and Politics, Second Edition, PHI Learning Private Limited, New Delhi, 2017, p. 265

[5] Raghunath Nageswaran, “Why Criminals enter Politics in India“, https://thewire.in/121252/when-crime-pays-milan-vaishnav/, April 5, 2017

[6] Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms and Another, AIR 2002 SCR 294

[7] Ramesh Dalal v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 775

[8] Jagdip S. Chhokar, “Revisiting India`s electoral reforms“, http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/VJe9yfsux8vLD33rOgOn0N/Revisiting-Indias-electoral-reforms.html, March 18, 2015

[9] Varun B. Krishnan, “A look inside the electronic voting machine“, http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/a-look-inside-the-electronic-voting-machine/article23036380.ece, March 10, 2018

[10] Express Web Desk, “What is VVPAT? How does it work?“, http://indianexpress.com/article/what-is/what-is-vvpat-how-does-it-work-4806869/, August 21, 2017

[11] People`s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, AIR 2013, 10 SCC 1

[12] V.R. Varchana and Maya Roy, “NOTA and the Indian voter“, Economic & Political Weekley, Volume 53, 2018

[13] Krishnadas Rajagopal, “Supreme Court gives the nod for setting up 12 special courts to try cases against politicians“, http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/sc-clears-12-special-courts-to-try-cases-against-politicians/article21665775.ece, December 14, 2017

[14] Niranjan Sahoo, “India`s political funding mess“, http://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-india-s-political-funding-mess-2552418, October 13, 2017

[15] N. Vittal, Corruption in India: The Roadblock to National Prosperity, Academic Foundation, New Delhi, 2007, p. 172

[16] Section 123 of the Representation of the People’s Act, 1951

[17] Om Prakash v. Lal Chand, AIR 1970 SC 1889

[18] Raman Bhai v. Jaswant Singh, AIR 1978 SC 1162

[19] Har Swaroop v. Brij Bhushan, AIR 1967 SC 836

[20] R.M. Seshadri v. G.V. Pai, AIR 1969 SC 692

[21] Mohammad Koya v. Muthu Koya, AIR 1979 SC 154

[22] Manohar Joshi v. Nitin Bhaurao Patil, AIR 1996 SC (1) 169

[23] Bal Thackeray v. Prabhakar K. Kunte, AIR 1996 SC 130

[24] Harsh Dobhal, Writings on Human Rights, Law and Society in India, Human Rights Law Network, New Delhi, 2011, p. 14

[25] A.G. Noorani, “Supreme Court and Hindutva“, http://www.frontline.in/the-nation/supreme-court-and-hindutva/article5596736.ece, January 7,  2014

[26] Suhrith Parthasarathy, “Hindutva at the hustings“, http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/Hindutva-at-the-hustings/article16082561.ece, October 27, 2016

[27] Dr. Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo v. Prabhakar Kashinath Kunte, AIR 1996 SC (1) 130

[28] S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, 1994 AIR 1918, 1994 SCC (3), 1, JT 1994 (2)215, 1994 SCALE(2)37

[29] Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen (Dead) by Lrs & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 37 of 1992

[30] Krishnadas Rajagopal, “Seeking votes on religious basis a corrupt practice: SC:“, http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/Seeking-votes-on-religious-basis-a-corrupt-act-SC/article16977220.ece, January 2, 2017

[31] Jamaat-e-Islamia Hind v. Union of India, AIR 1995 SCC 428

[32] Section 153-A and 153-B of the Indian Penal code, 1860

[33] Ujjwal Kumar Singh, The State, Democracy and Anti-Terror Laws in India, SAGE Publications, New Delhi, 2007, p. 99

[34] Dhartipakar v. Rajiv Gandhi, AIR 1987 SC 1577

[35] Haridwarlilal v. Kanwal Singh, AIR 1972 SCR 742

[36] U.S. Sasidharan v. K. Karunakaran and others, AIR 1989 SCC 482

[37] Satyanarayana v. Dhuja Ram, AIR 1987 SC 1577

[38] H.R. Khanna, Making of India`s Constitution, 2^nd Edition,Eastern Book Company, Lucknow, 2008, p. 417

[39] Ghasi Ram v. Dal Singh, AIR 1968 SC 1577

[40] Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 2299

[41] Ibid.

[42] M. Karunanidhi v. Dr. H.V. Hande, AIR 1983 SC 473

[43] Nanak Chand Pandit and Gyan Chand Mathur, The Law of Election and Election Petitions in India, 2^nd Edition, Metropolitan Book Co., New Delhi, 1957, p. 336, 624

[44] Sailendra Nath Sen, An Advanced History of Modern India, Pan Macmillan, New Delhi, 2010, p. 351

[45] B.P. Maurya v. Prakash Vir Shastri, AIR 1970 SC 522

[46] Dev Kanta Barroah v. Golok Chandra Baruah, AIR 1970 SC 1231

[47] Dr. Jagjit Singh v. Giani Kartar Singh, AIR 1966 AIR 773

[48] Section 79(d) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951

[49] Shri Babulal Patel & Ors v. Dr. Zakir Husain & Ors, AIR 1968 SC 904

[50] Ram Dial v. Sant Lal and Ors, AIR 1959 SC 855

[51] Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghoshal, AIR 1982 SC 983

[52] Kanhiya Lal Omar v. R.K. Trivedi, AIR 1986 SC 111

[53] Tanima Banerjee, “10 things you need to know about Model Code of Conduct“, http://www.business-standard.com/article/politics/10-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-model-code-of-conduct-114030600236_1.html, March 6, 2014

[54] Dr. Janak Raj Jai and Rajiv Jai, Revival of Two Party System in India, Regency Publications, New Delhi, 1999, p.