Allegations Of Corrupt Practice In Election Petition Quasi-Criminal In Nature; Must Be Proved Like Criminal Charge: High Court

The Court was hearing civil revisions filed against the order of the Election Tribunal whereby the election of a returned candidate to the post of President of a Municipal Council had been set aside, and fresh elections were directed to be conducted.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Vivek Jain, while delineating the standard of proof applicable to such allegations, observed: “corrupt practice is to be proved like a criminal allegation in a criminal trial, … Proof of corrupt practice requires strict proof, and no inference as to corrupt practice can be made, the trial of an election petition in allegation of corrupt practice is of a quasi-criminal nature, having the burden of proof on the election petitioner to prove the ingredients of charges”.

Senior Advocate Sanjay Agrawal appeared for the petitioner, while Advocate Nikhil Tiwari appeared for the respondents.

Background

The dispute arose from an election to the post of President of a Municipal Council, which was conducted through an indirect election by elected Councillors. The returned candidate secured a majority of votes and was declared elected.

An election petition was filed challenging the election on two primary grounds: firstly, that certain ballot papers contained identification marks rendering them invalid; and secondly, that the returned candidate had secured votes of Councillors belonging to another political party, which was alleged to constitute corrupt practice.

The Election Tribunal accepted both grounds, holding that certain ballots were invalid due to identification marks and further inferring corrupt practice from the fact that the returned candidate received support from Councillors of another political party and that some such Councillors were later appointed to positions within the Municipal Council.

Court’s Observation

The Court examined the entire record and dealt with both grounds on which the Election Tribunal had set aside the election, namely, invalidation of ballot papers and the finding of corrupt practice.

At the outset, the Court scrutinised the approach adopted by the Election Tribunal in declaring certain ballot papers invalid on the ground of alleged identification marks. It examined whether the markings in question were of such a nature as to disclose the identity of the voter so as to vitiate the secrecy of the ballot.

Upon consideration, the Court found that the Tribunal had treated the markings as disqualifying without establishing that they constituted identifying marks in the legal sense, thereby rendering its finding unsustainable.

The Court then proceeded to examine the allegation of corrupt practice and the evidentiary standard governing such claims. It reiterated the settled legal position that allegations of corrupt practice are to be strictly proved and cannot be inferred from circumstances.

In this regard, the Court observed that the proof of corrupt practice requires strict proof and no inference as to corrupt practice can be made. It further underscored the nature of proceedings, holding that the trial of an election petition in allegation of corrupt practice is of a quasi-criminal nature having burden of proof on the election petitioner to prove the ingredients of charges.

The Court also noted that the burden to establish each ingredient of the alleged corrupt practice lies squarely upon the election petitioner and does not shift. Referring to the governing principle, it is recorded that a heavy burden rests on the person alleging the corrupt practice to prove strictly all the ingredients of the charge strictly, thereby requiring clear and cogent evidence.

Applying the aforesaid principles, the Court examined the basis of the Tribunal’s finding and found that the inference of corrupt practice had been drawn solely on the ground that certain Councillors belonging to another political party had voted in favour of the returned candidate.

The Court held that such an inference was legally impermissible. It observed that the election in question was not contested on party lines and that, in the absence of a candidate from a particular political party, its elected members were required to cast their vote in favour of one of the contesting candidates. Such conduct, by itself, could not be treated as constituting corrupt practice.

The Court further examined the reliance placed by the Tribunal on subsequent appointments of certain Councillors to positions within the Municipal Council. It found that these facts were not part of the pleadings and could not have been relied upon to draw an inference of corrupt practice.

Emphasising the requirement of pleadings, the Court held that material facts forming the foundation of a charge of corrupt practice must be specifically pleaded and proved, and that the Tribunal had travelled beyond the pleadings by relying upon subsequent events not forming part of the election petition.

The Court also noted the absence of evidence identifying which Councillors had actually voted for the returned candidate, and therefore found that no direct nexus between the alleged conduct and the election result had been established.

On a cumulative assessment, the Court held that the finding of corrupt practice recorded by the Tribunal was based on conjectures and inferences rather than strict proof, and therefore could not be sustained in law.

Accordingly, the Court concluded that both the grounds adopted by the Tribunal, namely invalidation of ballot papers and inference of corrupt practice, were legally untenable and liable to be set aside.

Conclusion

The Court held that allegations of corrupt practice must be strictly pleaded and proved like a criminal charge and cannot be inferred from circumstances such as voting patterns or subsequent appointments.

Accordingly, the Court found that the Election Tribunal erred in drawing inferences beyond pleadings and without strict proof. Accordingly, the findings of corrupt practice were set aside, and the order of the Election Tribunal declaring the election void was interfered with.

Cause Title: Neetu Parmar v. Varshagadekar & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-JBP:26450)

Appearances

Appellant: Senior Advocate Sanjay Agrawal with Advocates Aishwarya Nandani Tiwari and Aditya Raj Shukla for the petitioner;

Respondents: Advocates Nikhil Tiwari and Rajendra Kumar Mishra for the respondents; Amit Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State.

Click here to read/download Judgment