Election petitions galore in Manipur

Oinam Nabakishore Singh
The topic of recent discussion under the “360 degree analysis of news and views” on a local TV channel is named “Weaponising Election Petition : 36 Snakes under the Bed”. This title is not only misleading, but it also reflects poorly on the understanding of law and judicial process to seek relief by the esteemed channel.
Fortunately, learned panelist in the debate rebutted by replying that election petitions are neither weapon nor snakes beneath the bed. Election petition is simply an avenue for legal remedy available under the Representation of People Act, 1951 (simply, Act). It is perhaps beyond the imagination of many people to see as many as 36 election petitions being filed before Manipur High Court against 29 elected members of Manipur legislative Assembly. Why do so many candidates or voters approach the Manipur High Court by engaging one of the best legal minds in the State ?
The Representation of the People Act, 1951 passed by the Parliament deals with various aspects of election petition. Election petition is a petition before the competent Court, High Court, to challenge the election of the returned candidate. When presented before the High Court, election petition will be tried by it in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Act. Simply, it will be tried like a civil suit. Indian Evidence Act will be relied upon while examining evidences adduced by the parties in election petition.
The grounds for filing of election petition will have to be one or more of the grounds given at Section 100(1) and 101 of the Representation of the People Act,1951. For the sake of clarity, the provisions of the Act mentioned herein are reproduced below:
1). Grounds for declaring election to be void.-(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) if the High Court is of opinion-
(a) that on the date of his election a returned candidate was not qualified, or was disqualified, to be chosen to fill the seat under the Constitution or this Act or [the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963(20 of 1963)]; or
(b) that any corrupt practice has been committed by a returned candidate or his election agent or by any other person with the consent of returned candidate or his election agent; or
© that any nomination has been improperly rejected; or
(d) that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a returned candidate, has been materially affected—
(i) by the improper acceptance of any nomination, or
(ii) by any corrupt practice committed in the interest of the returned candidate by an agent other than his election agent, or
(iii) by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void, or
(iv) by any non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or of this Act or any rules or orders made under this Act, the High Court shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void.
Briefly, election petition can be filed for use of corrupt practices or improper acceptance or rejection of nomination paper. Most of the election petitions are filed on grounds of improper acceptance of nomination papers of returned candidates.  
Acceptance of nomination paper of a candidate is in the realm of Returning Officer. It is difficult for the Returning Officer to detect defects in the information furnished in the Affidavit in Form 26, which accompanies a nomination, and hence, by and large, the Returning Officer accepts most of the nomination of candidates leaving the disputes to be settled by election petition.
After landmark judgements of Supreme Court on disclosure of criminal antecedents of candidates, assets and liabilities of candidate, his spouse and dependents, and educational qualification, etc., Representation of the People Act, 1951 was amended by inserting Section 33A, and by inserting new Clause 4A in the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. An Affidavit in Form 26 as prescribed under Rule 4A is to be sworn by the candidate before Oath Commissioner giving details of criminal antecedents if any, assets and liabilities and highest educational qualification of the candidate. In Manipur, it is reported in the judgements of Manipur High Court in election petitions mentioned that some returned candidates failed to give information relating to criminal antecedents, assets and liabilities and educational qualification. Election of such returned candidates in some cases were declared to be void by applying the grounds given in Section 100(1)(d) and by referring to previous judgements of Supreme Court.
It is not surprising to see 36 election petitions after the declaration of election to 12th Manipur Legislative Assembly in March, 2022. It is a good sign of awareness of law among candidates and electors that they are knocking at the door of judiciary to seek justice.
Resultantly, candidates in future will become more cautious in filing nomination at the election, and voters will get to know the candidates better. It is a good step towards better democracy.