In India, an election petition is a legal recourse available to challenge the validity of

an election conducted for the Parliament (Lok Sabha) or State Legislative Assembly.
It is a formal complaint filed with the relevant High Court or the Supreme Court,
alleging irregularities or illegalities in the conduct of an election or the eligibility of
the winning candidate.

Definition: An election petition in India is a legal instrument utilized to challenge the

conduct, results, or eligibility of a candidate in a parliamentary or state assembly
election. It is a formal complaint filed by an aggrieved party or individual (petitioner)
with the appropriate judicial authority, usually the High Court having jurisdiction over
the constituency where the election was held. The petition seeks to invalidate the
election of the winning candidate or to address other grievances related to the
electoral process.
GROUNDS FOR ELECTION PETITION
Corrupt Practices: Allegations of corrupt practices during the election process, such
as bribery, undue influence, coercion, intimidation, or treating (providing food, drink,
or other inducements to voters).

Bribery: Offering, giving, or receiving of any gratification (money, gifts, favors, etc.)
to induce someone to vote in a particular manner or refrain from voting.

Undue Influence: Any act or conduct that unduly influences a voter's decision,
including threats, coercion, or promises of benefit or detriment.

Personation: Impersonating a voter or voting more than once in an election, either by

the same person or multiple individuals.
Illegal Practices: Violations of election laws, rules, or regulations, including failure
to comply with nomination procedures, campaigning restrictions, or polling
regulations.

Disqualification of Winning Candidate: Allegations that the winning candidate is

disqualified from holding office under the Constitution, law, or election rules, such as
holding an office of profit, being of unsound mind, or being convicted of certain
offenses.

Failure to Comply with Statutory Requirements: Breach of statutory requirements

related to electoral processes, including the maintenance of election records, counting
of votes, or declaration of results.

Corruption and Electoral Offenses: Any offense under the Indian Penal Code or
other relevant laws committed during the election process, such as forgery, tampering
with ballot boxes, or falsification of election documents.

Violation of Secrecy of Voting: Any act or omission that compromises the secrecy of
voting, including the disclosure of voting preferences or interference with the secrecy
of the ballot.

Substantial Non-Compliance: Allegations that the election was not conducted in

accordance with the principles of free and fair elections, resulting in substantial non-
compliance with electoral laws or rules.
 TYPE OF PETITION ENTERAINED IN SUPREME COURT

Writ Petitions: These are petitions filed under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution,
seeking the enforcement of fundamental rights. Types of writ petitions include:
Habeas Corpus: Filed to secure the release of a person who has been unlawfully
detained.
Mandamus: Filed to compel a public authority to perform its statutory duty.
Prohibition: Filed to prohibit a lower court or tribunal from exceeding its
jurisdiction.
Certiorari: Filed to quash the orders or judgments of lower courts or tribunals.
Quo Warranto: Filed to challenge the appointment or election of a person to a public
office.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL): These are petitions filed by individuals or

organizations acting in the public interest. PILs seek judicial intervention in matters of
public concern, including environmental protection, corruption, human rights
violations, and access to justice for marginalized groups.

Civil Appeals: These are appeals filed against the orders or judgments of High Courts
or lower courts in civil matters.

Criminal Appeals: These are appeals filed against the orders or judgments of High
Courts or lower courts in criminal matters.

Special Leave Petitions (SLPs): These are petitions filed seeking special leave to
appeal against any order, decree, judgment, or determination of any court or tribunal
in the territory of India.

Review Petitions: These are petitions filed seeking a review of the Supreme Court's
judgment or order on the grounds of error apparent on the face of the record.

Curative Petitions: These are petitions filed as a last resort seeking the
reconsideration of a judgment or order of the Supreme Court after exhausting all other
remedies.

Contempt Petitions: These are petitions filed alleging contempt of court by

individuals or entities for willful disobedience of the Supreme Court's orders or
judgments.
 JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION
Constitutional Basis: The power of judicial review is inherent in the Indian
Constitution, primarily under Articles 32 and 226. Article 32 empowers the Supreme
Court to enforce fundamental rights, while Article 226 empowers High Courts to
issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights as well as for any other purpose.
Grounds for Judicial Review: The Indian judiciary can review administrative
actions based on several grounds, including:
Ultra Vires: Administrative actions that are beyond the scope of the authority
conferred by law.( B.K.Srinivasan vs State of Karnataka)
Violation of Fundamental Rights: Actions that infringe upon the fundamental rights
guaranteed by the Constitution, such as the right to equality, right to life, and personal
liberty.
Arbitrariness: Actions that are arbitrary, irrational, or unreasonable, lacking a
rational nexus to the objective sought to be achieved.
Mala Fides: Actions taken with mala fide intent or improper purpose, such as
corruption, bias, or discrimination.
Procedural Impropriety: Failure to follow prescribed procedures, principles of
natural justice, or fair hearing requirements.
Error of Law: Misinterpretation or misapplication of legal principles, statutes, or
precedents.
Error of Fact: Factual errors or misrepresentation of evidence leading to an unjust
decision.
Unreasonableness: Actions that are so unreasonable that no reasonable authority
could have arrived at the same decision.

Principles of Judicial Review: Several principles guide the exercise of judicial

review in India:
Doctrine of Legitimate Expectations: The expectation of individuals or entities
based on promises or established practices by administrative authorities may be
protected. (Council of civil service union vs minister for the civil service)
Doctrine of Proportionality: Administrative actions must be proportionate to the
objective sought to be achieved and must not be excessive or disproportionate.
Principles of Natural Justice: Administrative authorities must adhere to the
principles of natural justice, including the right to a fair hearing, impartiality, and
absence of bias.
Substantive and Procedural Reasonableness: Administrative actions must be
substantively and procedurally reasonable, with a rational nexus between the means
and the end.

Remedies: If an administrative action is found to be illegal, arbitrary, or unjust, the

judiciary can provide various remedies, including:
Quashing of Administrative Orders: Declaring the administrative action null and
void.
Mandatory Orders: Directing the administrative authority to perform its duty or to
correct the illegality.
Prohibitory Orders: Restraining the administrative authority from taking certain
actions.
Damages: Awarding compensation or damages to aggrieved parties for losses
suffered due to illegal administrative actions.
 PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE

(i) A.K GOPALAN .VS. STATE OF MADRAS

(ii) MANEKA GANDHI .VS. UNION OF INDIA
(iii) HUSSAIN KHATOON .VS. STATE OF BIHAR
(iv) NANDINI SATPATHY .VS. P.L.DANI
The Supreme court observed that article 22(1) directs that the right to choose an
advocate of his choice shall not be denied to any person who is arrested.
(v) D.K BASU .VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION

(i) RAM PRAVESH SINGH AND OTHERS VS STATE OF BIHAR

A person can be set to have a legitimate expectation of a particular treatment if any
representation or promise is made by an authority either expressly or implacably or if
regular consistent past practice of the authority gives room for such expectation in the
normal course.
(ii) B.K SRINIVASAN VS STATE OF KARNATAKA - ULTRA VIRES
The outline development plan journal regulation published as notice hence it’s not a
procedural ultra vires.
(iii) L.T. MC NEIL VS GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU 2001
The apex court held that before issuing notification absolute contract labour state
advisory board.
(iv) BANWARILAL VS STATE OF BIHAR 1961
The supreme court held that the provision under section 59 of mines act requiring
consultation with the mining board by the central government before framing
regulation was mandatory.