The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the purity of an election process will be ensured only if the ‘little man’ knows his candidate fully. The High Court held so in an election petition where it found that non-disclosure of criminal cases lodged against the candidate amounts to 'corrupt practice' under the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951.

A Single Bench of Justice D.V.S.S. Somayajulu said, “The little man walking into the little booth needs to know. Purity of the election process will only be ensured if the “little man” knows his candidate fully. Purity of the system can only be ensured by a full and frank disclosure. It cannot wait. It must not wait. ‘Satyameva Jayathe’ should not remain an empty slogan. A ‘free and fair’ election is a basic feature of our democracy which in turn is a basic structure of our constitution. It cannot be allowed to be polluted in any way.”

The Bench further said that a fully educated literate candidate like the respondent cannot be allowed to flout the law with impunity and that if such actions are pardoned, the painstaking effort put in by the Supreme Court to bring purity/probity into elections will be set at naught.

Advocate E.V.V.S. Ravi Kumar appeared for the petitioner while Senior Advocate P. Veera Reddy and Advocate Srinivas Basava appeared for the respondents.

In this case, an election petition was filed seeking a declaration of the election of the respondent as illegal, null, and void. It further sought to declare the acceptance of the nomination paper filed by the respondent/the returned candidate as illegal and improper.

The petitioner prayed for directing recounts and scrutiny of all the ballot papers. It was further prayed to declare the petitioner as duly elected in the biennial election held with regard to the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council.

The High Court in the above regard quoted a famous British leader which was referred to by Justice Krishna Iyer in Ramakrishna Hegde v. Election Commission of India (1980) 3 SCC 286 case i.e., “At the bottom of all the tributes paid to democracy is the little man walking into a little booth making a little cross on a little piece of paper…”

The Court noted that such little Indian’s desire to know; to be fully aware of the antecedents of his elected representatives so as to make an informed choice is the crux of the matter.

“Since this Court is of the conclusion that a corrupt practice has been committed by the returned candidate, steps have to be taken to make a reference to the authority i.e. the Secretary of the Legislative Council of the State, (as per section 8-A of the 1951 Act) for placing the issue before the Hon‘ble President of India to decide on the disqualification that is to be awarded to the 1st respondent in terms of section 8-A of the 1951 Act. He is also liable for prosecution under section 125 A of the 1951 Act”, observed the Court.

The Court further noted that the candidate must fill in the particulars in ‘Bold Letters’ and has to publish his antecedents in papers and in the electronic media also at least thrice.

“In view of the finding that the failure to disclose the details of the pending criminal case is a corrupt practice, a direction is issued in terms of section 8-A of the 1951 Act to the Secretary of the Legislative Council of Andhra Pradesh who is the ‗Authority‘ as per the Notification No.SO 367(E) dated 25.05.1976 to make a reference/place all the papers before Her Excellency, the President of India for taking further action in terms of Section 8-A of the 1951 Act. Respondent No.1 is also liable to be prosecuted under Section 125-A”, held the Court.

Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the election petition.

Cause Title- Vemireddy Pattabhirami Reddy v. Yendapalli Srinivasulu Reddy and 13 others

Click here to read/download Order



Andhra Pradesh High CourtJustice D.V.S.S. SomayajuluElection Petition

Swasti Chaturvedi