Holding

Section 1OA gives the Election Commission plenary authority to conduct a substantive enquiry into the truthfulness of election‑expense accounts and to disqualify a candidate for failure to lodge a true, correct account, without infringing Article 329(b).

Summary

The Supreme Court considered three appeals challenging orders of the Election Commission that disqualified elected candidates under Section 1OA of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 for allegedly failing to lodge true and correct accounts of election expenses. The Court examined the statutory scheme, the Conduct of Election Rules, and constitutional provisions, concluding that Section 1OA empowers the Election Commission to conduct a substantive enquiry into the correctness of expense accounts and to pass a three‑year disqualification order. The Court rejected the contention that only an election petition under Article 329(b) could address such matters and held that the Commission’s jurisdiction is distinct and complementary. Accordingly, the appeals were dismissed, upholding the Commission’s orders.

Issues considered

The scope of power conferred on the Election Commission by Section 1OA to enquire into the correctness of election‑expense accounts and to pass disqualification orders.
Whether the Election Commission’s jurisdiction under Section 1OA is barred by Article 329(b) which limits challenges to elections to election petitions.
Whether a person other than a candidate or elector has locus standi to invoke Section 1OA.
The relationship between the disqualification power under Section 1OA and the remedial provisions of Section 11 and constitutional remedies.

Legislation cited

Conduct of Election Rules, 1961s. Rule 86, s. Rule 87, s. Rule 88, s. Rule 89, s. Rule 90
Representation of the People Act, 1951s. 100, s. 101, s. 102, s. 103, s. 11, s. 123(6), s. 143, s. 144, s. 146, s. 190, s. 191, s. 192, s. 1OA, s. 77, s. 78, s. 7(c), s. 80, s. 81, s. 83, s. 84, s. 8(b)

Subjects

Election expensesDisqualificationSection 1OAElection Commission jurisdictionPaid newsElection petitionRepresentation of the People ActConduct of Election RulesArticle 329(b)Corrupt practice

Judgment

[2014] 14 S.C.R. 1227

ASHOK SHANKARRAO CHAVAN A
v.
DR. MADHAVRAO KINHALKAR & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5044 of 2014)
B
MAY05, 2014
' ' . [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND
FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.]
Representation of the People Act, 1951:
• c
s. 1OA - Election expenses - Power of Election
Commission to hold an enquiry to ascertain the correctness
or otherwise of the election expenses incurred by a returned
candidate for the purpose of passing the order of
disqualification - Held: Election Commission has got every
0
jurisdiction to enquire into the complaint made before it as
regards the incorrect and untrue statement of accounts of
election expenses lodged by the candidate - After such
enquiry, as he thinks fit, on being satisfied that no justification
was shown for the failure to lodge the account, can pass an E
order of disqualification as provided u/s.1 OA for a period of
three years from the date of the order and publish such order
in the official gazette - While discharging such onerous
responsibility, every care should be taken by Election
Commission to ensure that no prejudice is caused to the F
contesting candidate - Conduct of Election Rules, 1961.
s. 1OA - Enquiry by Election Commission - Relevance
of - Held: Requirement of an enquiry to be made by the
Election Commission at the instance of the President of the
country under Article 103 in the case of Members of G
Parliament and under Article 192 by the Governor of the State
in the case of Member of Legislative Assembly of the State,
fortifies conclusion that even the President of the country and
the Governor of a State can rely upon the report of the Election
H
1227
.
1228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A Commission based on an enquiry before taking a decision
under Article 103(2) and under Article 192(2) of the
Constitution - Therefore, to call the Election Commission's
responsibility before passing an order uls.10A only to see
the form and not substance as canvassed by the appellant'
B is a proposition too difficult to accept.
s.10A - Power
.-
invested.with
,-.,'\,.u,·•1 •..
Election;Commission
..
.-~.,.,.,...,,· .
~·,..._.;
-
Scope of - Held: Power invested with the constitutional
authority such as Election Commission should not be a mere
empty formality but an effective and stable one, in whom the
C citizens of this country can repose faith and look upon to
ensure that such unscrupulous efements and their attempts
to enter into political administration of this vast country are
scuttled.
D s.10A - Right to inspect accounts lodged by the
candidates - Held: Reading s.10A along with Rules 87 to
90, in particular, the right conferred on any person to seek for
inspection of the accounts submitted, is not merely to look
into the details of the account- If based on the inspection,
E made by a person under Rule 88 and the attested copies of
such accounts disclose that the candidate concerned
committed a very seriousillegality in the matter of submission
of account of election expenses,' it must be stated that such
a person will have every right to bring it to the notice of the
F Election Commission for taking appropriate legal recourse
available to that person under'the Act - Once any such
·misfeasance in the submission of account of election
expe17ses is brought to the notice of Election Commission,
thereafter it would be for the Election Commission to set the
G process in motion for deciding the issue as contemplated in
s._10A of the Act- Conduct of Election Rules, 1961-rr.87 to
90.
s. 1OA - Purpose of enquiry- Held: The enquiry to be
held u/s.10A is not to examine any allegation of corrupt
H
ASHOK SHANKARRAO CHAVAN v. DR. MADHAVRAO 1229
KINHALKAR

practice falling uls. 123 of the Act - The only area of A
examination to be made in an enquiry u/s. 1OA is with regard
to the lodging of the account of election expenses and
whether such lodgment was done in the manner and as
required by or under the Act - In the second place, when
~uch an enquiry is held, the scope would be as contained in B
s. 77(1) and (3) as well ass. 78- The enquiry u/s.10A would
be more or less of a civil nature and therefore, the principles
of preponderance of probabilities alone would apply and even
after the order of disqualification, if any, is passed u/s. 1OA,
after following the requirement of issuance of show cause c
notice, receipt of reply, etc., there is a further remedy
available to the contesting candidate u/s.11 by which the
aggrieved candidate can demonstrate before the Election
Commission as to how the order of disqualification cannot
stand. D
ss. 77 and 78 - Election expenses - Maintenance of
accounts - Held: s. 77 mandates as to how the account of
election expenses are to be maintained and the maximum
limit that can be expended as prescribed - s. 78 mandates
that every contesting candidate. in an election should within E
30 days from the date of election of the returned candidate,
lodge with the DEO an account of his election expenses,
which should be a true copy of the account kept by him or by
his election agent as required u/s. 77 - Reading s. 78 and
Rules 87 and 88, the intention of the legislature is explicitly F
clear that the maintenance of the correct account of the
election expenses within the time limit prescribed is not for
the satisfaction of the Election Commission alone - The
purport of the said exercise is to ensure that none of the
candidates can take it as a formality and file some return G
without disclosing their correct particulars, inasmuch as once
the true copy of the account maintained is lodged with the
DEO it is not only for the candidates who contested in the
election but 'any person' meaning thereby, any citizen of this
H
1230 SUPRsMECOURTREPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A country can have access to verify the account lodged with
the DEO and also get a authenticated copy of such a
statement-:- In fact, such an exercise is to maintain purity in
election.
ss.80 to 116 - Status of validly elected ci/h'didate -
B Challenge - Held: The status of a validly elected'can'CiiCiate
in an election can be called in question only befor</the
Election Tribunal (High Court) by way of an Election Petition
- The power and jurisdiction u/s. 1OA does not clothe the
Election Commission to deal with the successful election of
C the candidate concerned- In other words, exercising power
uls.10A, the Election Commission cannot set aside the
election of a successful candidate - s. 1OA talks of only an
order of disqualification that can be passed by an Election
Commission.
D
Constitution of India: Article 324(1) - Power and duties
of Election Commission - Held: Under Article 324(1), the
nature of functions, powers such as superintendence,
issuance of directions, control of the preparation of the
E electoral rolls, the conduct of all elections to Parliament and
to the legislature of every St.ate, as well as the elections to
the offices of the President and Vice-President, as per the
Constitution, is invested with the Election Commission.
· Judicial Notice : Elections - Manipulations and
F malpractices adopted and applied in election - It is common
knowledge as is widely published in the Press and Media
that nowadays in elections, payment of cash to the electorate
is rampant and the Election Commission finds it extremely
difficult to control such a menace - There are attempts made
G to violate the restrictions imposed in the matter of incurring
election expenses with a view to woo the electorate concerned
·and thereby, gaining their votes in their favour by corrupt
"means viz by purchasing the votes.

H
ASHOK SHANKARRAO CHAVAN v. DR. MADHAVRAO 1231
KINHALKAR

In appeal @SLP(C) no.29882 of 2011, the appellant A
was declared elected in the Assembly elections and
respondent was an unsuccessful candidate. As per the
provisions of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and
Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 within one month from
the date of publication of the results, a statement of B
election expenses was required to be filed by the
candidate with the District Election Officer (DEO). The
appellant filed his statement. The DEO forwarded his
report to the Election Commission. Respondent no.1
filed a complaint with the Election Commission alleging c
violation of the Election Code based on newspaper
reports. Besides the complaint, respondent no.1 also
filed an election petition before the Election Tribunal
(High Court). The High Court dismissed the election
petition. The appeal was also dismissed by the Supreme o
Court.
In appeal (@ SLP(C) No.14209 of 2012), the
appellant submitted his accounts of election expenses
along with the register and vouchers to the tune of
Rs.18,92,353/- as per the requirements of Section 78 of E
the said Act, to the DEO who in turn submitted this report
to the Election Commission, as per the requirements of
Rule 89. of the Rules. It was alleged that the Election
Commission after receiving the report failed to act as per
the requirements of Rule 89(4), which envisaged the F
Commission to decide the issue as soon as possible after
the submission of the report by the DEO. After about 15
months from-the submission of the report by the DEO,
the Election Commission issued a show cause notice
under Rule 89(5) of the Rules to the appellant, for the G
reason being that he failed to lodge his election
expenses in the manner required by law and demanded·
as to why he should not be disqualified under Section
1OA of the said act. The Election Commission held th~t it
H
'
1232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A has undoubted jurisdiction under Section 1OA to go into
the question of the alleged incorrectness or falsity of the
return by the candidate under Sections 77(1) and 77(2),
lodged under Section 78." Aggrieved by this order, the
appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court,
B which was dismissed.
In appeal (@ SLP(C) No.21958 of 2013), the
appellant was a candidate in the General Assembly
Election of 2007. The 2"" Respondent, was also a
contesting candidate from the 'said constituency. A day
C before the date of polling, a publication was made in a
newspaper mentioning that there is a wave in favour of
the appellant in the election and the voters have made
up their mind to support the appellant. The polling took
place and the appellant was elected. A complaint was
D submitted by Respondent No.2 to the Press Council of
India that the newspapers were in violation of journalistic
conduct and have published one sided news item in the
form of advertisement in favour of the appellant by taking
huge sums of money after the close of the campaigning
E and the day before the poll. The appellant submitted the
accounts of his election expenses before DEO as
required by Section 77 and 78 of the Act. The Press
Council held that the publication though camouflaged
as news items, in reality it was only an advertisement
F and held that the newspapers were guilty of ethical
violation. Subsequently, after receiving the order from
the Press Council of India, the Commission called for a
report from the Chief Electoral Office..- regarding
expenditure on the advertisement to which the Chief
G Electoral Officer forwarded the report of the DEO. The
DEO in his report had stated that the expenditure was
not clear from the r.eturns submitted by the appellant.
The Election Commission. thereby issued a notice to the
appellant stating that in the account of the election
H
ASHOK SHANKARRAO CHAVAN v. DR. MADHAVRAO 1233
KINHALKAR

expenses, the expenditure incurred for the two A
advertisements were not reflected and thereby, attracted
disqualification under Section 1OA for a period of three
years. The Election Commission after hearing the
appellant and respondent No.2 held the appellant to be
guilty of breach of the provisions 78 and 1OA of the Act B
and accordingly disqualified her for a period of three
years. A writ petition was filed by her challenging the
order of the Election Commission before the High Court
which was dismissed.
The main question which has arisen for C
consideration in these appeals is whether under Section
1OA of the Representation of People Act, 1951, the
Election Commission has power to hold an enquiry to
ascertain the correctness or otherwise of the election
expenses incurred by a returned candidate for the D
purpose of passing the order of disqualification, either
at the instance of the candidate who also contested in
the· said election or by any other person or based on
any other information received by the Election
Commission through some reliable sources. E
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Section 1OA of the Representation of
People Act, 1951 prescribes the disqualification to be
imposed for failure to lodge account of election F
expenses in the manner and as required by the Act.
Chapter VIII under the head 'Election Expenses'
consists of Section 77(1) and (3), which specifies as to
I"
,, how a separate and correct account is to be maintained
I.' and the total of the expenditure should not exceed the G
prescribed limit. Section 78 spe.cifies the requirement of
lodging of account with the DEO as required under
Section 77 within a stipulated time limit. Part VIII under
Chapter IV prescribes the power of the Election
H
1234 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A Commission under Section 146 and the procedure for
holding an enquiry as required under Articles 103 and
192 of the Constitution is set out. Sections 146A to 146C
prescribes the procedure to be followed by the Election
Commission while holding the enquiry under Section
B 146. [Paras 25, 26][1281-F~H; 1282-A-B, D-E]
2. Article 101(3)(al will have to be read along with
Article 102(1)(e). Article 101(3)(a) merely states aboutthe
consequences that would follow if a Member of either
House of Parliament suff~rs disqualification as provided .
C under Article 102(1 )(e), namely, that the seat would
thereupon become vacant in the Parliament. The purport
of Article 102(1)(e) is to ensure that any disqualification
of a Member of Parliament can be declared only by or
under any law made by the Parliament. That apart under
D Article 103. of the Constitution, whenever a question
arises as to whether a Member of Parliament has been
disqualified as provided under Article 102(1 ), the.decision
as to such a disqualification can be reached only by the
President of India, which would become absolute and
E conclusive. However, under Article 103(2) it is provided
that before arriving at such a decision, the President
.should obtain the opinion of the Election Commission
and act based upon such opinion of the Election
Commission. Articles 190(3)(8), 191(1)(e) and 192(1)&(2)
F are the identical provisions, which would be applicable
to a Member of a Legislature of the State. The only
difference is under Article 192, it is the Governor who
can take the decision and such a decision should be
again based on the opinion rendered by the Election
G Commission. Therefore, Articles 101, 102, 103, 190, 191
and 192 prescribe and mention as to how a
disqualification of a Member of a Parliament or a Member·
of a State Legislature can be given effect to either by the
President of India or by the Governor of the respective
H
ASH OK SHANKARRAO CHAVAN v. DR. MADf:IAVRAO 1235
KINHALKAR

States by declaring the consequent vacancy created A
either in the Parliament or the State Legislature. Article
102(1)(e) and 191(1)(e) stipulate that such a
disqualification shall have to be initially arrived at by
applying the provisions of law made by the Parliament.
Therefore, the common thread in these Constitutional B
provisions relatable to a Member of a Parliament or a
Member of a State Legislature is that apart from other
disqualifications mentioned in Articles 102(1)(a) to (d)
and 191(1)(a) to (d), a disqualification arrived at as
provided under a law made by the Parliament would form C
the basis for either the President of India or for the
Governor of the respective States to ultimately take a
decision as regards such disqualification declared under
a valid law made by the Parliament. Apart from these
provisions, under Article 329(b), it is specified that an o.
Election to either House of Parliament or either House
of the Legislature of a State, cannot be called in question
except by an Election Petition presented to such
authority in such manner as may be provided for by or
under any law made by the appropriate legislature. While E
Articles 101 to 103 and 191 to 192 deal with the
disqualification of an elected member either to the
Parliament or to the State Legislature, Article 329(b)
relates to the validity of a member elected to any
constituency in an election held in accordance with law F
and such validity can be examined only by a prescribed
authority under the law made by the appropriate
legislature. Reading Article 329(b) and Se<;tions 80to116
of the Act together, the position emerges that the status
of a validly elected candidate in an election can be called G
in question only before the Election Tribunal (High Court)
by way of an Election Petition and such Election Petition
to be decided by the Election Tribunal (High Court). The
validity of an election to either of the House of Parliament
or the State Legislature cannot be called in question in H
1236 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014)14 S.C.R.

A any other manner other than what has been prescribed
under the provisions of the 1Act, as has been set out in
Sections 80 to 116 of the Act. Apart from this
Constitutional mandates, relating to disqualification and
validity of an election to be challenged, Articles 327 and
B 328 of the Constitution, provide the power to Parliament
to make provisions by law to deal with the elections to
Parliament and State Legislature and also by the State if
such law does not contain any provision to deal with an ·
election to the said offices. Apparently, in the purported
c exercise of the above Article 327 of the Constitution, the
Representation of the People Act in the year 1950 and
subsequently in the year 1951, came to be passed in the
Parliament and thereafter, the relevant rules, namely, the
Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 were also promulgated.
D [Paras 28 to 30][1291-G-H; 1292,A-H; 1293-A]
3. Under Article .324(1) of the Constitution in Part
XV, the nature of functions, powers such as
superintendence,. issuance'of directions, control of the
preparation of the electoral rolls, the conduct of all
E elections to Parliament and to the legislature of every
State, as well as the elections to the offices of the
President and Vice-President, as per the Constitution,
is invested with the Election Commission. Prior.to the ·
introduction of Section.1 OA, Section 7(c) prescribed as
F to how a person should be disqualified for being chosen
a.s and for being a Member of either House of. the
Parliament or of a Legislative Assembly or Legislative
Council of a State. It was stipulated that if a person
having been nominated as a candidate for Parliament or
G the Legislature of a State fails to lodge a return of election
expenses within time and in the manner required by ~r
under the Act, would suffer such disqualification unless
five years have elapsed from the date by which the return
ought to have been lodged or the Election Commission
H
ASHOK SHANKARRAO CHAVAN v. DR. MADHAVRAO 1237
KINHALKAR

removed such disqualification. Section 8(c), which was A
a non-obstante clause, specified that a disqualification
suffered under Clause (c) of Section 7, cannot take effect
unless the expiration of two months from the date by
which return of the election expenses ought to have
been lodged or such longer period as the Election B
Commission may in any particular case allow. A reading
of Sections 7(c) and 8(b) as it existed then, vested n_o
specific authority with the Election Commission or for
that matter with any other authority as to how a
disqualification can be declared for the failure to lodge a c
return of the election expenses within the time and in
the manner required by or under the Act. In fact, the
subsequent amendment to Section 7(c) only related to
the expiration of a period of five years having been
altered as three years and in Section 8(c) it is stated that o
the expiration of two months period would start from the
date on which the Election Commission decided that the ·
account of election expenses has not been lodged within
the time and in the manner required by or under this Act.
Therefore, a conspicuous reading of Sections 7(c) and E
8(b), as it originally existed, and after its amendment
under Act 27 of 1956, remained the same and the only
improvement made was that the decision as regards the·
failure to lodge the account within the stipulated time
limit is to be declared by the Election Commission for . F
Section 7(c) to operate. [Paras 31, 33 and 34][1294-B-C;
E-H; 1295-A-E]
4. Section 77 which is under Chapter VIII mandates
as to how the account of election expenses are to be
maintained and the maximum limit that can be expended G
as prescribed. Section 77(1) specifies that every
candidate should keep a separate and correct account ·
of all the expenditure in connection with the election that
was incurred as between the date on which his
nomination was made and the date of declaration of the H
1238 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A result thereof i.e. inclusive of both the dates. A careful
reading of Section 77(1) makes it significantly clear that
a candidate contesting in an election, should maintain a
separate and correct account of all expenditure incurred.
by him in connection with the election. Section 73(3)
B makes it mandatory ttiat the total of. the expenditure in
connection with an election should not exceed such
amount as may be prescribed. Under Rule 90 of the
Rules, the total of the expenditure that can be expended
for which account is to be maintained under Section 77
C has been prescribed in a separate table applicable to
different States, in respect· of their Parliamentary
Constituency and Assembly Constituency. Reading
Section 77(3) along with Rule 90 and Section 77(1) shows
that every candidate contesting in an election should
o maintain a separate account relating to the election, that
such account should contain all the expenditures
incurred by him in connection with.the election and most
importantly such details of the account and the
expenses incurred must reflect the correct particulars
E apart from ensuring that such expenditure does not
exceed the maximum limit prescribed under Rule 90 as
stipulated under Section 77(3). [Paras 36 and 37]
[1295-G·H; 1296-A-F]
5. Section 78 of the Act mandates. that every
F contesting candidate in an election should within 30
days from the date of election of the returned candidate,
lodge with the DEQ an account of his election expenses,
which should be a true copy of the account kept by him
or by his election agent as required under Section 77.
G The corresponding rules are Rules 87, 88 and 89 of the
Rules. Under Rule 87, within two days from the date· on
which the account of election expenses is lodged by
candidate, as stipulated under Section 78, the DEO
should cause a notice to be affixed in the notice board,
H specifying the date on which the account was lodged,
ASH OK SHANKARRAO CHAVAN v. DR. MADHAVRAO 1239
KINHALKAR

the name of the candidate and the time and place at which A
such account could be inspected. Under Rule 88 any
person would be entitled on payment of a fee of Rs.1 to
· inspect any such account and on payment of such fee
that may be fixed by the Election Commission, obtain
attested copies of such account or any part thereof. B
Reading Section 78 and Rules 87 and 88, the intention
of the legislature has been explicitly made clear that the
maintenance of the correct account of the election
expenses within the time limit prescribed in making such
expenses is not for the satisfaction of the Election C
Commission alone. The purport and intent of the said
exercise is to ensure that none of the candidates can
take it as a formality and file some return without
disclosing their correct particulars, inasmuch as once
the true copy of the account maintained is lodged with D
the DEO it is not only for the candidates who contested
in the election but 'any person' meaning thereby, any
citizen of this country can have access to verify the
account lodged with the DEO and also get a
authenticated copy of such a statement. In fact, such a E
stipulation contained in Sections 77(1) and (3), 78, Rule
90, as well as Rules· 87 and 88 were brought into the
statute book in order to ensure that the purity in the
election is maintained at any cost and nobody is ;illowed_
to take the voting public of this country for a ride. · F
[Para 38][1296-F-H; 1297-A-F] .
6. Judicial notice is also taken of the fact about-.
every kind of manipulations and malpractices that are
being adopted and applied in elections in the recent past
as is reported widely in the Press and Media. Unlike the , G
yesteryears, i.e. immediately after independence and the
role of Election Commission while holding the public
elections has become so vital, a greater and .wider
responsibility is imposed on the Election Commission ,
H
1240 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 14 S.C.R.

A to ensure that those who contest the elections maintain
high amount of integrity and honesty and that the voting
public are not duped by their.evil designs. Sub-rules (1)
to (8) of Rule 89 specify the extent to which the
verification of the correctness and genuineness of the
B accounts lodged can be enquired. Under sub-rule (1) of
Rule 89, after lodging of the true copy of the account as
specified under Section 78 of the Act, the DEO should
report to the Election Commis~ion as to the name of each
contesting candidate and state whether such candidate
C . lodged his account of election expenses and if so the
date on which such account was lodged and whether
the account was lodged within the required time and in
the manner required by the Act and the Rules. The
manner required under the Act would certainly include
o the true and correct accounts to be maintained, a copy
of which alone can be stated to mean having been lodged
in the mann~r required. In fact, under sub-rule (2) of Rule
89, the DEO if on verification found that the lodging of
the account was not in the manner required, should send
E a report to that effect to the Election Commission along
with the accounts lodged by the candidate concerned.
Tlie DEO should also publish a copy of his report in the
notice board. Under sub-rule (4) of Rule 89, after the
receipt of the report referred to in sub-rule (1 ), the Election
F · ·Commission has to again consider the same and decide
whether any contesting candidate failed to lodge the .
account of election expenses within the time and in the
manner required by or under the Act and the Rules .
. Under sub-rule (5) of Rule 89. when the Election
G Commission decides that a'contesting candidate failed
to lodge his account of election expenses within time
. and in the manner required by the Act as well as the
Rules, it should by notice in writing call upon the
candidate to show ~ause why he should not be
H disqualified under Section 10A for such default. Under
ASHOKSHANKARRAO CHAVAN v. DR. MADHAVRAO 1241 ·
KINHALKAR

sub-rule (6) of Rule 89, once the notice to show cause is A
issued as per sub-rule (5), within 20 days of receipt of
such notice, the candidate concerned should submit a
representation in writing to the Election Commission and
simultaneously forward a copy to the DEO together with
the complete account of his election expenses, if he had B
not already furnished such an account. Under sub-rule
(7) of Rule 89, the DEO should forward his report on the
representation so submitted by the candidate, if any, with
such comments which he wishes to make on the said
representation. Under sub-rule (8) of Rule 89, the C
Election Commission after such enquiry, as he thinks
fit, on being satisfied that no good reason or justification
was shown for the failure to lodge the account, can pass
an order of disqualification as provided under Section
1OA for a period of three years from the date of the order D
and publish such order in the official gazette. In sub-rules
(1) to (5) refers to specific reference to the manner
required by the Act as regards the account to be
maintained, a true copy of which is to be lodged with the
DEO which is to be ultimately forwarded to the Election E
Commission. [Paras 39 to 42][1297-F-H; 1298-A-H;
1299-A-E]
7. If such onerous responsibility has been imposed
on the Election Commission while scrutinizing the
details of the accounts of the election expenses F
submitted by a contesting candidate, it will have to be ·
stated that while discharging the said responsibility,
every care should be taken to ensure that no prejudice
is caused to the contesting candidate. If such a
meticulous exercise has to be made as required under G
the law, it will have to be held that the onerous •
responsibility imposed on the Election Commission
should necessarily contain every power and authority
in him to hold an appropriate enquiry. Only such an
exercise would ensure that in ultimately arriving at the . H
1242 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14.S.C.R.

A satisfaction for the purpose of examining w.hether an
order of disqualification sh'ould be passed or not as
stipulated under Section 1OA, the high expectation of the
electorate, that is the citizens of the country reposed in
'the Election Commission is fully ensured and also no
B prejudice is caused to the contesting candidate by
casually passing any order pf disqualification without
makin~ proper ascertainment of the details of the
accounts, the correctness of the accounts and the time
within which such account was lodged by the candidate
C ~oncerned. The specific expression 'by or under' used
iil Section 10A(a) emphasizes that wherever the Act
stipulates as regards the maintenance and the lodgment
of the account, such stipulations in its substance would
be the requirement for the verification to be made while
D holding an enquiry under Section 10A. Section 10A has
been comprehensively enacted replacing earlier'
Sections 7(c) and 8(b) ofthe Act in order to ensure that
the contesting candidate in an election cannot deal with
the expenses in regard_to th~ election in ariy manner he
E likes but such expenses can be incurred only in the
manner required under the ·law. Also, while in.curring
such expenditures, a true and correct account should
also be maintained and such expenditure should not
exceed the prescribed limit as is contemplated under
F Section 77(1) and (3) read with Rule 90. If such a stringent
provision for incurring election expenses has been
brought into the statute book and if the real intent and
purpose of such provisions are not understood and
allowed to be implemented in its true spirit, it would
G provide scope for any contesting candidate to violate
· s_uch a statutory requirement flagrantly and thereby,
make. the provision a dead letter. [Paras 44, 45)
{1.300-C-H; 1301-A-E] ··
8. Under Section· 10A, when the Election
H Commission, on being satisfied
. '
that a person failed to
ASHOK SHANKARRAO CHAVAN v. DR. MADHAVRAO 1243
KINHALKAR

lodge an account of election expenses within the time A
specified and in the manner required by or under this
Act, can pass an order of disqualification of such person
for a period of three years from the date of its order, such
an exercise should be carried out by the Election
Commission with utmost care and caution and not by B
merely finding that there is a statement of account
claimed to be a true copy of the election expenses
maintained by the candidate and that it was lodged with
the DEO in the appropriate format. In such an event, the
concerned candidate can go scot-free even in a case c .
where it can be brought to the notice of Election
Commission that apart from the expenses disclosed in
the statement of expenses lodged with. the Electio_n.
Commission, the candidate concerned had incurred
various other expenses in a clandestine manner by
'adopting various manipulations and thereby, violating D
the requirement of law in particular Section 77(1) and (3) ·
of .the Act and thereby in effect not only cheat the
electorate concerned, but even a constitutional authority
in whom a very heavy responsibility has been invested
under Article 324(1) of the Constitution. In fact, the E
requirement of an enquiry to be made by the Election
Commission at the instance of the President of the
country under Article 103 and in the case of Members of
Parliament under Article 192 by the Gov~rnor of the State
in the case of Member of Legislative Assembly of the F
. State, fortifies conclusion that even the President of the
· country and the Governor of a State· can rely upon the
report of the Election Commission based on an enquiry
before taking a decision under Article 103(2) and under
Article 192(2) of the Constitution. Therefore, to call the G
Election Commission's responsibility before passing an
order under Section 10A oriiy to see the form and not
substance as canvassed by the appellant is a
proposition too difficult to accept. [Para 461[1301-F-H;
1302-A-F] H
1244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 14 S.C.R.

A · 9. Section 143 falling under Chapter I of Part VII
needs to be examined alongside the explanation to sub-
section (1) and (6) of Section 123. When reading the
explanation to sub-section (1 ), 'bribery' is stipulated as
one forni of corrupt practices and yet proceeds to state
B thatthe act of bribery cannot be attributed to the payment
of any expenses bona fide incu'rred for the purpose of
any election and duly entered into the account of election
expenses ·referred to in Section 78, i.e. the provision
under which a contesting candidate is mandated to
c lodge, a true copy of the election expenses maintained
by him, within 30 days from the date of the election of
the returned candidate. The said explanation further
reinforces the fact that maintenance of expenses, as
mandated under Section 77(1), should not only be
D correct, but also be bona fide expenses. Therefore, even
the explanation to sub-section (1) to Section 123 makes
it clear that incurring of election expenses and the
maintenance of account of those expenses are not an
empty formality but the very purpose of stipulating such
E re~trictions and directions under Section 77(1) and (3)
read along with Section 78 explain!? the mandate to
maintain absolute purity in elections by the contes.ting
candidates. This is required in order to ens!Jre that the
process of the election is not sullied by resorting to
F u.nethical means while incurring election expenses.
[Para 47][1302-F-H; 1303-A-C].
10. It is common knowledge as is widely published
in the Press and Media that nowadays in elections
payment of cash to the electorate is rampant and the
G Election Commission finds it extremely difficult to control
such a menace. There is no truthfulness in the attitude
and actions of the contesting candidates in sticking to
the requirement of law, in particular to Section 77 and
there is every. attempt being made to violate the
.H
•
ASH OK SHANKARRAO CHAVAN v. DR. MADHAVRAO 1245
KIN HAL KAR

restrictions imposed in the matter of incurring election A
expenses with a view to woo the electorate concerned
and thereby, gaining their votes in their favour by corrupt
means viz by purchasing the votes. Therefore, this Court
cannot turn a Nelson's eye and state that Section 77(1)
and (3), as well as 78 would be relevant only for the B
purpose of ascertaining the corrupt practices under
Section 123(6) of the Act and that such requirement of
incurring bona fide and correct expenditure need not be
a requirement for ascertainment for the Election
Commission while exercising its powers under Section C
10Aof the Act. In fact, ascertainment of the requirement
under Section 77(3) viz. the expenses incurred, do not
exceed the limit prescribed and can be made both for
the purpose of an enquiry under Section 10A, as well as
in the event of a candidate exceeding the limit as a o
corrupt practice for the purpose of invalidating the
election. Therefore, the requirement under Section 77(3)
has got twin objectives to be fulfilled. [Para 48)
[1303-D-H; 1304-A]
11. One other relevant provision under the Act is E
Section 146 falling under Chapter IV of Part VIII. Section
146 is relatable to Articles 103 and 192 of the Constitution.
Under Articles 103 and 192 of the Constitution in the case
of a Member of Parliament or a Member of State
Legislature for the purpose of ascertaining the fact about F
a member vacating his seat as a member, one of the
requirements would be that such a member is
disqualified by or under any law made by the Parliament.
The act of disqualification referred to in Articles 102 or
190 of the Constitution, can be mainly referable to the G
law made by the Parliament viz the Representation of
the People Act. The decision of the President of India
and the Governor of a State depends upon the opinion
of the Election Commission. Section 146 of the Act
prescribes the procedure to be followed before H
1246 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 14 S.C.R.

A rendering the opinion to the President of India or the
Governor of a State. [Para 49][1304-B-E]
12. When it is stipulated under Articles 102(1)(e) and
191 (1 )(e) to the effect that the ascertainment of vacation
of a seat of a Member of Parliament or a Member of a
B State Legislature would depend upon a disqualification
suffered by or under the provisions of the Act, it will have
to be held that the procedure to be followed for passing
such an order of disqualification should be befitting the
requirement of Section 1OA or otherwise when an
C opinion is sought for from' the Election Commission
under Article 103(2) or 192(2), it would be rather
impossible for the Election Commission to sustain any
such order of disqualification. The Act in that respect
cannot be held to have imposed in the Election
D Commission a responsibility which will not synchronise
with the original order of disqualification to be made
under Section 1OA of the said Act and for the ultimate
opinion to be rendered after such disqualification order
is passed for the purpose of enabling the President of
E India and the Governor of a State to take appropriate
decision for ascertaining the status of a member to
vaca,te his seat as a Member of Parliament or State
Legislature. It would be incongruous to visualise such a
situation while reading Articles 101 to 103 and 190 to 192
F of the Constitution, read along with Sections 146 and
1OA of the Act. An order to be passed under Section 1OA
·of the said Act, could be no less importantthan an opinion
to be rendered by the Election Commission under
Section 146 when sought for by the President of India
G or the Governor of the concerned States. Therefore, the
exercise to be made under Section 10A of the said Act
would certainly include the requirement of not a farce of
ah enquiry but a true and complete one to determine
whether the return of election expenses by an elected
H
ASH OK SHANKARRAO CHAVAN v. DR. MADHAVRAO 124 7
KINHALKAR

candidate is a true/correct or false/bogus return and that A
would not depend upon the decision of the Election
Tribunal (High Court), which is provided under the Act
for validating the election of a returned candidate on very
many grounds set out in Section 123 of the Act, including
the one under Section 123(6) which contemplates the B
compliance of the requirement under Sections 77 and
78 of the Act. However, it will have to be stated that if the
said issue was squarely dealt with by the Election
Tribunal (High Court) based on the entire materials that
were also placed before the Election Commission and c
the Election Tribunal (High Court) had dealt with the. said
issue in detail and recorded a finding after examining
such materials threadbare, there is no reason for the
Election Commission to give due weight to such a finding
of the Election Tribunal (High Court) while exercising its D
jurisdiction under Section 10A. [Para 50][1304-F-H;
1305-A-G]
13. In recent times, when elections are being held
it is widely reported in the Press and Media that money
power plays a very vital role. Going by such reports and E
if it is true then it is highly unfortunate that many of the
voters are prepared to sell their votes for a few hundred
rupees. In fact, taking advantage of the weakness of the
voters, exploitation to the maximum level is being carried
out by. those who aspire to become either Member of F
Parliament or State Legislature. The sad part is that the
sanctity of the status as a Member of the Legislatures,
either Parliament or State Legislature are not being
seriously weighed even tiy those who sponsor their
candidature. It is a hard reality that if one is prepared to G
expend money to unimaginable limits only then can he
be preferred to be nominated as a candidate for such
membership, as against the credentials of genuine and
deserving candidates. If such practices are to be simply
ignored and a laudable object with which the Act has H
1248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A been brought into the statute book as early as in the year
1950 and later on by the Act of 1951, wherein by virtue of
the Constitutional provision under Article 324 an
authority in the status of the Election Commission is
created in order to supervise and control the elections,
B it must be stated that such an authority who is in ultimate
control in the matter of holding of the elections should
be held to be invested with the widest power of its kind
specified in the Act. Therefor~. when it· comes to the
question of interpretation of the extent of such power to
c be exercised by the said authority, the Court should hC1ve
a very liberal approach in interpreting the nature of power
and jurisdiction vested with the said authority, namely,
the Election Commission. This view is more so apt in
the present day context, wherein money power virtually
D controls the whole field of election and that people are
taken for a ride by such unscrupulous elements who
want to gain the status of a Member of Parliament or the
State Legislature by hook or crook. [Para 55)[1311-F-H;
1312-A-E]
E · 14. The Preamble to the Constitution which in liberal
words states that the people of India having solemnly
resolved to constitute India into a sovereign, social,
secular, democratic, republic and to secure to all citizens
justi!=e, liberty, equality and fraternity. In such a large
F democratic country such as ours, if purity _in elections is
not maintained and for that purpose when the
constitution makers in their wisdom thought itfitto create
an authority, namely, the !=lection Commission and
invested with it the power of superintendence, control
G and also to issue directions, it must be stated that such
power invested with the said constitutional authority
should not be a mere empty formality but an effective
. and stable one, in whom the citizens of this country can
repose in and look upon to ensure that such
H unscrupulous elements and their attempts to enter into
ASHOK SHANKARRAO CHAVAN v. DR. MADHAVRAO 1249
KINHALKAR

political administration of this vast country are scuttled. A
In that respect, since the ruling of tl)is vast country is
always in the hands of the elected representatives ofthe
people, the enormous powers of the Election
Commission as the guardian of democracy should be
recognized. It is unfortunate that those who are really B
interested in the welfare of society and who are incapable
of indulging in any such corrupt practices are virtually
sidelined and are treated as totally ineligible for
contesting the elections. [Para 56][1312-F-H; 1313-A-B]
15. The challenge to an election by way of an C
Election Petition is provided for under Article 329(b) of
the Constitution and the manner in which such Election
Petition is to be filed and the procedure to be followed
were all set out in Sections 80 to 116 of the Act. It is true
that Article 329(b) specifically stipulates that no election D
can be called in question except by way of an Election
Petition. Section 80 stipulates that no election shall be
called in question except by an Election Petition
presented in accordance with the provisions of this Part,
namely, Part VI of the Act. Section 83 stipulates that an E
Election Petition should contain a concise statement of
the material facts on which the appellant relies, set-forth
full particulars of any corrupt practice that the appellant
alleges, including a full statement of the possible names
of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt F
practice and the date and place of the commission of
each such practice, which should be signed by the
Appellant concerned and verified in a manner as
provided in the Code of Civil Procedure for verification
of pleadings. The proviso to Section 83(1) states that G
where the appellant alleges any corrupt practice, the
Petition should also be accompanied by an affidavit in
the prescribed form in support of the allegation of such
corrupt practice and the particulars thereof. It is based
H
1250 · SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A on such contents in the Election Petition as provided
under Section 83, the trial of Election Petition will be made
by the Election Tribunal (High 'Court) and the various
other provisions describe the procedures which are to
be followed, including the relief to be ultimately granted
B . which is provided for and that is the scope and ambit of
jurisdiction that could be exercised by an Election
Tribunal (High Court). [Paras 57, 58][1314-B-H; 1315-A]
'
16. The power and jurisdiction under Section 10A
does not clothe the Election Commission to deal with .
C the successful election of.the candidate concerned. In
other words, exercising power under Section 10A, the
Election Commission cannot set aside the election of a
successful candidate. Section 1OA talks of only an order
of disqualification that can be passed by an Election
D Commission. Further, such disqualification order can be
passed for failure to lodge an account of election
expenses in the manner required by or under the Act.
Therefore, the scope of an EleCtion Petition to be tried
by an Election Tribunal (High Court) and the scope of an
E order of disqualification to be passed under Section 1OA.
are entirely different and it must be stated that one does
not conflict with the other. The very same allegation of a ·
corrupt practice may form part of the failure to lodge the
account in the manner required by or under the Act as
F has been specified ih Sections 77 and 78 of the Act in an
Election Petition. Therefore, simply because such an
issue may form part of a corrupt practice as provided
under Section 123(6) and the failure may be in
contravention of Section 78 of the Act, it may also be
G one of the grounds in challenging the successful election
of a candidate concerned in an Election Petition. On that
score, it cannot be held that tile area of disqualification
to be considered by the Election Commission, under
Section 1OA, is fully covered in an Election Petition and
H
ASHOK SHANKARRAOCHAVAN v. DR. MADHAVRAO 1251
KINHALKAR

thereby, the power and jurisdiction of the Election . A
Commission would stand excluded. It cannot therefore,
be contended that once the Election Petition having
been rejected for want of particulars, which order has
become final, a complaint under Section 10A cannot be
pursued. [Para 59][1315-C-H; 1316-A] B
17. The scope and ambit of Section 7(c) has been
widened by metes and bounds in Section 10A in its
present form. In Section 7(c), there is no reference to any
positive order to be passed by any authority much less
an Election Commission specifying the disqualification C
suffered. On a reading of Section 7(c) along with Section
8(b), as it originally stood, there is no scope to hold that
the failure to lodge a return of election expenses within
the time and in the manner required by or under the Act
can be examined by an Election Commission in a manner D
known to law. Therefore, an order of disqualification to
be passed based on such examination or enquiry should
precede such an order. On the contrary, as has been
explained in detail about the scope of Section 10A read
along with Section 77(1) and (3), Section 78 and Rules E
86 to 90, the failure to lodge an account of election
expenses within the time and in the manner required by
or under the Act would result in serious consequences
and consequently, such a failure would result in an order
of disqualification to be passed by the Election F
Commission. Section .10A in its very opening words, ·
empowers the Election Commission on being satisfied
about·the defects in the lodging of the account of
election expenses as contemplated under Section 77(1)
and (3) read along with Section 78 and the Rules 86 to G
90, to pass an order and publish it in the official gazette,
as regards the disqualification period of which is
prescribed as three years from the date of the order. Such
a· detailed nature of power, now prescribed under
H
1252 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014)14 S.C.R.

A Section 10A, was not provided for under Section 7(c)
read along with Section 8(b), as it originally stood.
[Para 62][1317-B-H]
18. lhe power under Section 10A is wide enough
for the Election Commission to deal with the issue of
8 disqualification on the ground of failure to lodge the
account of election expenses within the time and in the
manner required by or under the Act for deciding the
issue whether an order of disqualification should be
passed against a contesting candidate. In fact, while the
C scope of consideration by the Election Tribunal (High
Court) will be in relation to the validity of election of a
successful candidate by the other contesting candidates
and the ultimate conclusion by the Election. Tribunal
(High Court) may be either validating the election or
D invalidating the election by setting it aside, the power
under Section 1OA would apply to all the candidates who
contested in the election, who have to mandatorily
. comply with the requirement of Section. 77(1) and (3) as
well as Section 78 along with the prescribed rules in that
E respect. Therefore, the submission that under Section
10Athe Election Commissi.on.cannot venture to hold an
enquiry for the purpose, of passing an order of
disqualification in the light of the decision of the Election
Tribunal (High Court) in the case of the Appellant in the
F appeal (@ SLP(C) 29882 of 2011) is a far-fetched one.
[Para 63][1318-B-F]
19. The order of the Election Commission, which
has now been upheld by the High Court in stating that it
G has got every jurisdiction to enquire into the complaint
made before it as regards the incorrect and untrue
statement of accounts of election expenses lodged by
the Appellant can be enquil-ed into for the purpose of
passing an order of disqualification under Section 1OA,
H is perfectly justified. [Para 65][1319-H; 1320-A-B]
ASH OK SHANKARRAO CHAVAN v. DR. MADHAVRAO 1253
KINHALKAR

20. Reading Section 1OA along with Rules 87 to 90, A
in particular, the right conferred on ariy person to seek
for inspection of the accounts submitted, is·not merely
to look into the details of the account. If based on the
inspection, made by a person under Rule 88 and the
attested copies of such accounts disclose that the B
candidate concerned committed a very serious illegality
in the matter of submission of the account of election
expenses, it must be stated that such a person will have
every right to bring it to the notice of the Election
Commission for taking appropriate legal recourse c
available to that person under the Act. Once any such
lllisfeasance in the submission of the account of the
election expenses.is broughtto the notice of the Election
Commission, thereafter it would be for the Election
Commission to set .the process in motion for deciding D
the issue as contemplated in Section 10A of the Act. It
cannot be said that no person can by way of a complaint
approach the Election Commission. [Para 69][1321-H;
1322-A-D]
21. The conduct of election being in the realm of E
public domain, the operation of such election would take
place in each constituency, in an area spread over the
whole of the constituency.. The Election Commission
may not be in a position to have access to any kind of
illegality or irregularity indu·lged in by the candidates F
concerned, irrespective of the various personnel such
as Election officers, security personnel, etc. functioning
exclusively for the purpose of holding the election under
the control of the Election Commission. Therefore, such
instances of illegalities committed by the candidates G
contesting in the election in certain areas of the
constituency may come to the notice of some individuals,
which may have a serious ramification relating to"the
conduct of the candidate by abusing the process of the
election with the aid of money power available with such H·
1254 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A candidate. Therefore, if someone is able to assert such
misuse offunds ii) the process of election by a candidate
by making an inspection under Rule 88 and if the
concerned individual finds out that such misuse of funds
had taken place, which was not disclosed in the
·B statement of account of election expenses, he will have
every right to bring it to the notice of the Election
Commission and the very purport of providing such a
right ·under Rule 87 and 88 when read along with Section
10A makes it clear that he wo'uld have every locus to
c prefer a complaint. Also in the course of an enquiry made
under Section 1OA, the Election Commission can call
upon the concerned individual to substantiate tt1e
complaint with relevant materials to enable the Election
Commission to pass appropriate orders of
o disqualification under the said Section. Therefore, the
contention for the appellant that the Complainants have
no locus cannot be accepted: In fact, apart from the
complaints of the individuals, in the case of the appellant
in the appeal (@ SLP(C) No.29882 of 2011) and in the
E case of the appellants in the other appeals, such illegality
in the matter of accounts of the election expenses was
brought to the notice of the Election Commission by the
Press Council of India in one case and by the Board of
Direct Taxes in the other. Even if some motive can be
F attributed to the complaints made by the individuals,
there is no reason why bodies like the Press Council of
India and the statutory body, namely, Board of Direct
Taxes should. have any malice or motive against the
candidates concerned, namely, the appellants while
G bringing the illegalities commi.tt.ed by the appellants to
the notice of the Election Commission. Therefore, the
contention based on locus of the complainants has
absolutely no substance and the same stands rejected.
[Paras 70, 71][1322-D-H; 1323-A-F]
H
ASHOK SHANKARRAO CHAVAN v. DR. MAOHAVRAO 1255
KIN HAL KAR

L.R. Shivaramagowda & Ors. v. T.M. A
Chandrashekar (D) by LRs. & Ors. 1999 (1) SCC
666: 1998 (3) Suppl. SCR 241 - relied on.
N.P. Ponnuswami v. The Returning Officer,
Namakkal Constituency, Namakkal, Salem Dist.,
& Ors. AIR 1952 SC 64: 1952 SCR 218; State B
of H.P. &Ors. v. Surinder Singh Banolta 2006 (12)
SCC 484 : 2006 (9) Suppl. SCR 574; Brundaban .
Nayak v. Election Commission of India AIR 1965.
SC 1892 : 1965 SCR 538; Jagan Nath v.
Jaswant Singh & Ors. AIR 1954 SC 210: 1954 c
SCR 892; Kanwar Singh Saini v. High Court of
Delhi 2012 (4) sec 307 : 2011 (15) scR 972;
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Andhra Provincial
Potteries Ltd. & Ors. AIR 1973 SC 2429 : 1974 .
(1) SCR 410- held inapplicable. D

22. The enquiry to be held under Section 1OA is
not to examine any allegation of corrupt practice falling
under Section 123 of the Act. The only area of examination ,·
to be made in an enquiry under Section 1OA is with regard E
to the lodging of the account of election expenses and
whether such lodgment was done in the manner and as
required by or under the Act. In the second place, when
such an enquiry is held, the scope would be as contained
in Section 77(1) and (3) as well as Section 78. The said F
provisions require a contesting candidate to maintain a
true and correct account of the election expenses to
ensure that such expenses are within the limits
prescribed under the Act and that a copy of such
statement of accounts is filed within the time prescribed · G.
under Section 78. When it comes to the question of a
corrupt practice under Section 123, .the scope of
examination of the said issue would be within the four
corners of an Election Petition, as has been prescribed
in Chapter I of Part VI of the Act to Chapter V of the Act. H
1256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A The enquiry under Section 1OA would be more or less of
a civil nature and there.fore, the principles of
preponderance of probabilities alone would apply and
even after the order of disqualification, if any, is passed
under Section 10A, after following the requirement of
. B •issuance of show cause notice, receipt of reply, etc., there
is a further remedy available to the contesting candidate
under Section 11 by which the aggrieved candidate can
demonstrate before the Election Commission as to how
the order-of disqualification cannot stand and that it has
c to be varied. Even if by invoking Section 11 the aggrieved
candidate is not able to get his grievance redressed, the
. Constitutional remedy under Articles 32 and 226 of the
_Constitution. is always available to question the
correctness of any order that may be passed by the
D Election Commission under Sections 1OA and 1:I of the
Act. [Para 86][1332-E-H; 1333~A-D]
Secretary, A.P.D. Jain Pathshala & Ors. v. Shivaji
'Bhagwat More & Ors.-2011 (13) SCC 99 : . 2011
(6) SCR 1173; Election Commission of India
E Through Secretary v. Ashok Kumar & Ors. 2000
(8) SCC 216 : 2000 (3) Suppl. SCR 34; Bharat
Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical
. Services Inc. 2012 (9) SCC 552 : 2012 (12)
SCR 327; M. Karunanidhi v. Dr. H. II. Hande &
F Ors. 1983 (2) SCC 473; Sucheta Kripalani v. S.S.
Ou/at & Ors. AIR 1955 SC 758: 1955 SCR 450;
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of
Maharashtra & Ors. AIR 2011SC312: 2010 (15)
-SCR 201; Sales Tax Officerv. K.I. Abraham 1967 ·
G (3) SCR 518 - held inapplicable.·
State of Gujarat &Anr. v. Justice R. A. Mehta (Retd.)
& Ors. 2013 (3) sec 1 : 2013 (1) SCR 1; Afjat
Imam v. State of Bihar & Ors. 2011 (5) SCC
,729': 2011 (5) SCR 771; Union of India v.
H .
ASHOK SHANKARRAO CHAVAN v. DR. rviADHAVRAO 1257
KINHALKAR

Association for Democratic Reforms &Anr. 2002 A
(5) SCC 294: 2002 (3) SCR 696; People's Union
for Civil Liberties (PUCL) &Anr. v. Union of India
& Anr. 2003 (4) sec 399 : 2003 (2) SCR 1136;
Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. v. Chief Election
Commission, New Delhi & Ors. 1978 (1) SCC . B
405: 1978 (2) SCR 272 - relied on.
23. In *Dalchand Jain case, this Court held:
. "Section 123(6) lays down that 'the incurring or
authorising of expenditure in contravention of Section c
77' is a corrupt practice. Every contravention of Section
77 does not fall within Section 123(6). Section 77 consists
of three parts. Section 77, sub-section (1) requires the
candidate to keep a separate and correct account of all
election expenses incurred or authorised by him within D
certain dates. Section 77, sub-section (2) provides that
the account shall contain such particulars as may be
prescribed. Section 77, sub-section (3) requires that the
total of the said e~penditure shall not exceed the
prescribed amount. Section 123(6) is related to Section
E
73(3). If the candidate incurs or authorises expenditure
in excess of the prescribed amount in contravention of.
Section 77(3) he commits corrupt practice Linder Section
123(6). The contravention of Section 77, sub-sections (1)
and (2) or the failure to maintain correct accounts with
the prescribed particulars does not fall within Sectjon
F ..
123(6)."
Thus, relying on the said holding there is no doubt
that while Section 123(6) is relatable to Section 77(3),
there is no bar to invoke Section 77(1) and (2) while G
holding the enquiry under Section 10A of the Act.
[Paras 106, 107][1345-C•H]
*Da!chand Jain v. Narayan Shankar Trivedi & Anr.
1969 (3) sec 685 - relied ori.
H
1258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A 24. To maintain the basics of democracy and purity
in elections it is appropriate to hold that the decision of
the Election Commission as upheld by the High Court
to the effect that Section 1OA clothes the [:lection
Commission with the requisite power and authority to
B enquire into the allegations relating to failure to submit
the accounts of election expenses in the manner
prescribed and as required by or under the Act, is
perfectly justified and there is no scope to interfere with
the same. Inasmuch as the period of membership is likely
C to come to an end, it will be in order for the Election
Commi$sion to conclude the proceedings within one
month and pass appropriate orders in accordance with
law. In order to ensure that within the said period the
Election Commission is not prevented from passing the
D orders due to non-cooperation of any of the parties, it
will ·open for the Election Commission to hold the
proceedings on a day to day basis and conclude the
same within the said period. [Para 111][1347-G-H;
1348-A·C]
E. ·. Oipak Chandra Ruhida's v. Chandan Kumar
Sarkar 2003 (7) SCC 66: 2003 (2). Suppl.
SCR 72; Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi 1986
(Supp) SCC 315: 1986 SCR 782.; Shri Krishan .
· v. Sat Narain 1971 (37) ELR 13; Brundaban
F Nayak v. Election Commission of India & Anr. AIR
• 1965SC1892: 1965 SCR 538; Ram Phal Kundu
v. Kamal Sharma 2004 (2) SCC 759: 2004 (1)
SCR 977; Capt. Chanan Singh Sidhu v. The
Election Commission of India, Nf}w Delhi & Ors.
G AIR 1992 P&H 183; Somnath Sahu v. The State
of Orissa & Ors. 1969 (3) SCC 384; Common
Cause (A Registered Society) v. Union of India &
. Ors. (1996) 2 sec 752 : 1996 (3) SCR 1208;
Duport Steels Ltd. v. Sirs (1980) 1 WLR 142 -
H referred to.
ASHOK SHANKARRAO CHAVAN v. DR. MADHAVRAO 1259
KINHALKAR

CASE LAW REFERENCE A.
1955 SCR 450 held inapplic;;ible Paras 6, 7,
8, 9, 13,
17, 18, 20,
60, 61, 64,
91, 92, 97 . B
1998 (3) Suppl. SCR 241 relied on Paras 6, 10,
16, 20, 52,
60, 61, 64,
91,92,97,98 C. ·..
2003 (2) Suppl. SCR 72 referred to Para 6
19865CR 782 referred to Para-6
1952 SCR 218 held inapplicable Para 72
2006 (9) Suppl. SCR 57 4 held inapplicable · Paras 11, D
74
1971 (37) ELR 13 referred to Para 11
1969 (3) s·cc 685 held inapplicable Paras 11,
77,106
E
1965 SCR 538 held inapplicable Paras 11,
78, 79
2004 (1) SCR 977 referred to Par<! 11
1954 SCR 892 held inapplicable Paras 11,
.F
. 81
2010 (2) SCR 396 referred to . Para 11
2011 (15) SCR 972 held inapplicable Paras 11,
82
G
1974 (1) SCR 410 held inapplicable . Paras 11,
84
1983 (2) sec 473 held inapplicable Para 90 ._.

2011 (6) SCR1173 l)eld inapplicable Paras 11,
H
87,88
1260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 14 S.C.R.

A 2000 (3) Suppl.SCR 34 held iriapplicable Para 11
2010 (15) SCR 201 held inapplicabl~ Paras 11,
" 91,92
1999 (1) Suppl. SCR 135 referred to Para 12
B 1967 (3) SCR 518 held inapplicable Paras 12,
95
1955.(1) SCR 158 referred to Para 12
2012 (12) SCR 327 · held inapplicable Paras 12,
' . 89,90,93
c
AIR 1992 P&H 183 · referred to , · Para 12
1969 (3) sec 384 · ·referred to Para 16
1996 (3). SCR 1208 referred to Para 16
(1980) 1-WLR 142 referred to · · ·Para 93
D
2013 (1) SCR 1 relied on Para 99
2011 (5) SCR 771 relied on . ·Para 101
2002. (3) SCR 696 relied on Para 102

E.' 2003 (2) SCR 1136 relied on Para 104
1978 (2) SCR 272 relie·d on Para 110
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
5044of2014. ~

From the judgment and order dated 30.09.2011 of the
F
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in WPC No. 2511 of 2011.
'WITH
Civil Appeal Nos. 5045 and 5078 of 2014.

G lrshad Ahmad, AAG, Gopal Subramanium, Pravin M.
Shah, Pramod Kohli, Sunil Kumar, Jayant Bhushan, Ms.
M.eenakshi Arora, Ashok H. Desai, Sr. Advs., Abhimanyu
Bhandari, Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi, Ms. Aanchql Mullick, Aditya
Siki::hi°, P. s. Bhakkad, Naveen Kumar (AOR), Himanshu
. "
H
·.
ASH OK SHANKARRAO CHAVAN v. DR. MADHAVRAO 1261
KINHALKAR

Shekhar (AOR), Abhay Prakash Sahay, S.K. Sinha, Cha man A
Sharma, Tejasvi Nanda!, Dilip Annasaheb Taur, Anil Kumar
(AOR), S.K. Mendiratta, Mohid D. Ram, Vasav Anantharam,
D.N. Goburdhan, Abhinav Mukherjee, S.A. Haseeb, M. N.
Pasha, Vikas Bansal, B.V. Bairam Das, Prashant Bhushan.
Govid Jee and Abhisth Kumar, Advs., for the appearing parties. B
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.
1. Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.
2. The simple yet important question of law that have C
arisen in these appeals before us and which have serious
ramifications on the maintenance of sanctity in our democracy
is as to whether the Election Commission, under Section 1OA
of the Representatioi;i of the People Act, 1951, can conduct
an enquiry to determine the falsity of the return of election D
expenses by an elected candidate, especially after a decision
is rendered by the High Court in the Election Petition preferred
by the Respondent No.1.
3. On the aforesaid background, let us briefly examine E
the facts of this case. The appeal (@ SLP(C) No.29882 of
2011) has been filed by the candidate who was elected in the
Assembly elections in the State of Maharashtra. The results
of the election to the Assembly were declar-ed on 22.10.2009.
The Respondent No.1 was one of the candidates who F
contested the said election as against the Appellant. The
Appellant was declared elected and the Respondent No, 1 was
an unsuccessful candidate. As per the provisions of the
Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the Conduct of
Election Rules, 1961 (hereinafter called "the Act and the Rules"), G
within one month from the date of publication of the results, a
statement of election expenses has to be filed by the candidate
with the District Election Officer (hereinafter called "DEO"). The
Appellant stated to have filed his statement of election
H
1262 SUPREME CO.URT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A expenses on 17.11.2009, i.e., within one month of the date of
election. It is also brought to our notice that on 24.11.2009, the
DEO, Nanded forwarded his report to the Election Commission
of India and that according to the Appellant, nothing adver::ie
was stated in the said report. However, on 02.12.2009, the
B Respondent No.1 filed a complaint with the Election
Commission alleging violation of the Election Code baseq on
newspaper reports. Besides the above complaint of the
Respondent No.1 to the Election Commission, he also filed
an Election Petition before the Election Tribunal (High Court)
c on 04.12.2009. This very allegation which was raised before
the Election Commission was stated to have been raised in
the Election Petition as well. The Election Petition was
·dismissed by the Election Tribunal (High Court) on 18.10.2012
on the ground of want of material particulars. The Respondent
o No.1 thereby preferred a statutory appeal before this Court in
Civil Appeal No.9271 of2012, which was also dismissed by
this Court on 21.01.2013.
4. We heard Mr. Gopal SiJbramanium, learned Senior
Counsel for the Appellant in the appeal (@SLP(C) No.29882
E of 2011 ), Mr. Venkatramani, learned Senior Advocate for the
Appellant in the appeal (@ SLP(C) No.14209 of 2012), Mr.
Sun ii Kumar, Senior Advocate for the Appellant in the appeal
(@ SLP(C) No.21958 of 2013. We also heard Mr. Jayant
Bhushan, Senior Advocate for the Respondent No.1 in the
F appeal (@ SLP(C) No.29882 of 2011) and Ms. Pinki Anand,
Senior Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the said
appeal. Mr. L. Nageswar Rao, Additional Solicitor General
appeared for the Respondent No.5, Union of India and Mr.
Ashok H. Desai, Senior Advocate represented the Election ·
G Commission. We also heard Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned
counsel, who appeared for theApplicants/lntervenors through
I.A. No.2 of 2013.
5. Mr. Gopal Subramanium, learned Senior Counsel in
H the first instance, referred to Sections 77(1 )(2)(3), BOA, 86 (1 ),
ASHOK SHANKARRAO CHAVAN v. DR. MADHAVRAO 1263
KINHALKAR [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

100( 1)(a)(b) and 123(6), as well as Section 1OA of the said A
Act. The learned Senior Counsel also referred to Articles ·
101 (3)(a), 102(1 )(e) and 103 of the Constitution, as well as
Articles 190, 191 (1 )(e) and 192. The learned Senior Counsel
also made reference to Rules 86, 87, 88 and 89 falling under
Part VIII of the Rules and contended that the Election B
Commission had no jurisdiction to deal with the issue relating
to disqualification on the ground of irregularity in the lodging of
election expenses in the present case, by virtue of the fact that
the said issue can only be dealt with in an Election Petition
before the Election Tribunal (High Court). According to•learned C
Senior Counsel, in the case on hand, since at the instance of
Respondent No.1, the successful election of the Appellant was
the subject matter of challenge in an Election Petition, which
· was dismissed by the Election Tribunal (High Court) for want
of material particulars and upheld by this Court in Civil Appeal D
No.9271 of 2012, there is total lack of jurisdiction for the
Election Commission to deal with said issue all over again.
6. The learned Senior Counsel also brought to our notice
the old Section 7(c) of the 1950Act, which was a provision for
disqualification prior to the 1966 amendment by which Section E
1OA was introduced and also referred to the earlier judgment
of this Court reported in Such eta Kripalani v. S.S. Dulat &
Ors.-AIR 1955 SC 758, as well as the subsequent decision
reported in L.R. Shivaramagowda & Ors. v. T.M.,
Chandrashekar (D) by LRs. & Ors. • 1999 (1) SCC 666. F
The learned Senior Counsel then contended that when the
Election Petition, as preferred under Section 86 of the Act was
dismissed for want of material particulars, which is a binding
judgment, having regard to the principles laid down in the
decisions of this Court reported in Dipak Chandra Ruhidas G
v. Chandan Kumar Sarkar - 2003 (7) SCC 66 and Azhar
Hussai_n v. Rajiv Gandhi - 1986 (Supp) SCC 315, such
contentions are to be pleaded/supported by proper material.
facts and when once such plea was dealt with by the Election
H
1264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 14 S.C.R.

A Tribunal (High Court) and rejected.which was also upheld by
this Court, there is no residuary jurisdiction left with the Election
Commission to pass another order of disqualification. The
learned Senior Counsel contended that though the Election
Petition was dismissed for want of material particulars, still it
B is a final judgment and that the same is binding on all
concerned. The learned Senior Counsel after referring to
Section 1OAvis-a-visthe old Section 7(c) of the Act, contended.
that failure to lodge the account 'in the manner required' is an
exercise to be examined in a summary manner and there is·
C no scope for an adjudication as sought to be made by the
Election Commission~ The learned Senior Counsel also
contended that for the first time since the amendment in 1966,
the Election Commission seeks to 'examine the correctness·
of the details in an elaborate manner, which is not permissible.
D 7. According to the learne.d Senior Counsel, while
Section 78 of the Act may be referable to Section 1OA, Section
77 cannot be read into Section 1OA. After making reference
to Sections 77, 100, 123(6) as well as Sections 44, 76, 99
and 100 of the Act learned Senior Counsel contended that
E while under the old law, a false return was a corrupt practice
which can earn a disqualification, in the light of the amendment
now made, the Election Commission cannot confer upon itself
a jurisdiction, even after an adjudication in an election petition,
by seeking to exercise its powers under Section 10A. The
F learned Senior Counsel by referring to the earlier decision of
this Court in Sucheta Kripalani (supra) contended that the
ratio laid down therein that the Election Commission can only
see the form and not sub.stance, continue to hold good even
as on date. · 1

G
8. According to the learned Senior Counsel, after the
amendment to Section 7(c) and introduction of Section 1OA,
the automatic disqualification has been taken away and the
power is now vested with the Election Commission. It was,
however, contended that the present attempt of the Election
H
ASHOK SHANKARRAO CHAVAN v. DR. MADHAVRAO 1265
KINHALKAR [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

Commission to hold an adjudication of the issue, if accepted, A
would result in collision with the judicial forum, which has already
exercised its powers in an Election Petition. According to
learned Senior Counsel, the law declared in Sucheta
Kripalani (supra) which held the field prior to the various
amendments introduced viz to Sections 7, 8, ?A, 10, 10A, 11, B
77, 85, 101(b) and 126, continue to hold good.
9. The learned Senior Co"unsel also finany brought to our
notice the amended Rule 89 after the 1966 amendment in
~hich sub-rule (5) was introduced. This Rule empowers the
Election Commission to take a decision in the event of the C
contesting candidates failing to lodge their account bf election
expenses within the time and in the manner required by the
Act, as well as the Rules by which the Election Commissi0n
can call upon the candidate concerned to show cause why he
should not be disqualified under Section 1OA for his failure. D ·
The ·1earned Senior Counsel then referred to the order
impugned in the appeal (@SLP(C) No.29882 of2011) passed
. by the Election Commission holding that the Election
Commission is fully empowered to pass an order of
disqualification for the failure of the elected candidate to lodge E
the account as per the Act and the Rules.
10. The sum and substance of the submission of Mr.
Gopal Subramanium, learned Senior Counsel is:
(a) By virtue of Article 329 (b) of the Constitution read F
with Section 80 of the Act, a challenge to the election
can only be by way of an election petition, that the election
of the Appellant having been challenged unsuccessfully,
in an election petition which was also confirmed by this
Court in C.A. 9271/2012 by order dater 21.1.2013, there G
is no power or jurisdiction with the Election
Commissioner to enquire into the validity of the said
election or for that matter pass an order of disqualification
by way of holding an enquiry under Section tOA of the
M H
1266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S:C.R.

A (b) Even after the amendments to the Act in 1956, as
well as in 1966, in the end by which Section 7(c) came to
be amended and, thereafter, replaced by Section 1OA,
whatever ratio laid down by this Court in Sucheta
Kripalani (supra) continued to hold good and that the
B judgment jn LR. Shivaramagowda (supra) was clearly
distinguishable and required reconsideration. The
submission is that as per Section 7(c) of the Act, prior to
its amendment, what was he'ld by this Court in Sucheta
Kripalani (supra) was that the submission of return of
c election expenses is only in forf)l and not in substan~e
and that the said principle continues to apply even in
relation to Section 1OA of the Act.
(c) The enquiry c-cintemplated by the Election
Commission if permitted to be held, would result in
D conducting a trial which would be ultra vires of Article
329 (b), that there is no statutory rule or procedure for
holding such an enquiry, which would otherwise involve
the applicability of rules of pleading, powers of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1905 question of limitation, adding
E of proper parties, applicability of the Evidence Act, 1872
and the like. When such a procedure is not being provided
as contemplated in the Act, .the attempt of the Election
Commission to proceed with the inquiry would result in
anomalous consequences, and, therefore, the impugned
F order of the Election Commission cannot be sustained.
(d) Section 1 OA disqualification is only a default
disqualification and not a stigmatized one and any
enquiry under Section 1OA can only <be based on the
DEO's report. Also reasons are to be given only when
G
removal or reduction of disqualification is to be made
under Section 11, and, therefore, if the Election
Commission were to ultimately set aside an election by
exercising its power under Section 1 OA, the
consequences would be very severe.
H
ASHOK SHANKARRAO C.HAVAN v. DR. MADHAVRAO 1267
KINHALKAR [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

(e) The Election Commission, who was impleaded as a A
party in the election petition itself sought for its deletion,
that the Complainants Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi or Kirit
Somaiya, neither being voters nor candidates who lost
in the election, had no locus standito seek for an enquiry
under Section 1OA, inasmuch as an election petition can B
only be as against an elected candidate. Further, the
scope of holding any enquiry by the Election Commission
can be referable only to Article 191 (1 )(e) read with Article
192(2) of the Constitution and not otherwise by invoking
Section 1OA of the said Act. C
(f) The scope of invalidating an election is available under
Section 100(1 )(d)(iv) ofthe said Act which would cover
all illegality.
(g) Law of the election being a special law, its intendment D
as well as effects will have to be found in the given law
and not outside of it. The doctrine of equitable
consideration will not apply and where the Constitution
leaves any ambiguity, the benefit of the doubt should be
given to the subject as against the legislature. E
(h) The power of Election Commission under Article324
of the Constitution can be invoked only where it is
unoccupied and when there is no vacuum in the Act, the
Election Commission cannot enlarge its powers wider
than what is available to the Election Tribunal (High F
Court).
(i) The impugned order of the Election Commission in
attempting to enlarge its powers while invoking Section
1OA cannot be permitted.
G
U) The Election Commission failed to note that the
requirement under the Rule is for the election officer, as
well as the Election Commission, to only see that the
returns were filed in time as prescribed under the Act
and if there is no good reason for failure to lodge the H
1268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 14 S.C.R.

A accounts within time, the Election Commission can.only
examine the reason for passing appropriate orders
under Section 11 and not beyond.
11. In support of the above submissions, the learned
Senior Counsel relied upon "N.P. Ponnuswami v. The
B Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, Na!lJakkal,
Salem Dist., & Ors. -AIR 1952 SC 64~ State of H.P. & Ors.
v. Surinder Singh Banolta 2 2006 (12) SCC 484, Shri
Krishan v. Sat Narain - 1971 (37) ELR 13, Dalchand Jain
v. Narayan Shankar Trivedi & Anr. - 1969 (3) SCC 685,
C Brundaban Nayak v. Election Commission of India & Anr.
-AIR 1965 SC 1892, Ram Phal Kundu v. Kamal Sharma -
2004 (2) SCC 759, Jagan Nath v. Jaswant Singh & Ors. -
AIR 1954 SC 210, Tukaram S. Dighole v. Manikrao Shivaji
Kokate - 2010 (4) SCC 329, Kanwar S.ingh Saini v. High
D Court of Delhi - 2012 (4) SCC 307, State of Andhra
Pradesh & Anr. v. Andhra Provincial Potteries Ltd. & Ors.
-AIR 1973 SC 2429, M. Karuhanidhi., v. Dr. H.V. Hande &
Ors. 1983 (2) SCC 473, Secretary, A.P.D. Jain Pathshala
& Ors. v. Shivaji Bhagwat More & Ors. - 2011 (13) SCC
E 99, Election.Commission of India Through Secretary v.
Ashok Kumar & Ors. - 2000 (8) SCC 216, Siddharam •
Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. - AIR
2011 SC 312. Mr. Venkataramani, learned Senior Counsel
for the Appellant in the appeal (@SLP (C) No.14209 of 2012
F adopted the submission of Mr. Gopal Subramanium.
12. The Union of India was represented by Mr. L.
Nageswar Rao, learned Additional Solicitor Ge.neraLAt the
very outset, he submitted that though the Union of India is now
G taking a contrary stand than what was taken before the Election
Commission, as the issue relates to the interpretation of
Section 1OA, which is purely a legal question, in the light of the
judgment of this Court in P. Nallammal &Anr. v. State Rep.
by Inspector of Police-(1999) 6 SCC 559 such a stand of
the Union of India cannot be faulted. The learned Additional.
H
ASHOK SHANKARRAO CHAVAN v. DR. MADHAVRAO 1269
KINHALKAR [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

Solicitor General contended that Section 1OA only covers A ,
some procedural aspects and not substantive aspects. After
referring to Section 1OA and the expressions used in the said
Section, namely, 'manner' the learned Additional Solicitor
General contended that the said expression has to be
interpreted only as a mode or a procedure and not a substance B
of correctness of the return to be filed. The learnedAdditiorial
Solicitor General after referring to the dictionary meaning of
the expression 'manner', relied ori a decision of this Court
reported in Sales Tax Officerv. K.l.Abraham -1967 (3) SCR
518 wherein, this Court held that the expression 'manner' only C
refers to the mode and not substance. His contention was that
since the provision is penal in nature, it calls for strict
, interpretation. The learned Additional Solicitor General,
therefore, contended that when such an interpretation is made
to Section 1OA, the failure to submit the accounts in time is for D
the satisfaction of the Election Commission, which is merely
about the form and not of substance. The learned Additional
Solicitdt General further submitted that the scope of enquiry
under Section 1OA is not adjudicatory in nature and that no
reasons are needed to be recorded. According to him, what E
is to be seen is that the filing and such filing is in the proper
form. The Learned Additional Solicitor General relied upon the
decision reported in Tolaram Relumal & Anr. v. The State
of Bombay- 1955 (1) SCR 158, Bharat Aluminium Co. v.
Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc. - 2012 (9) SCC F
552, Capt. Chanan Singh Sidhu v. The Election
Commission of India, New Delhi & Ors. -AIR 1992 P&H
183,. While referring to LR. Shivaramagowda (supra), the
learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that the
interpretation placed in paragraph 18 is not in consonance G
with Section 123 (6) vis-a-vis Section 77, read along with Rules
86 and 89 and, therefore, it requires reconsideration.
13. Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the Respondent No.1, after narrating the
H
127Q SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2Q14] 14 S.C.R.

A sequence of events from the date the election result was
declared, announcing the success of the Appellant on
22.1 Q.2QQ9 and thereafter, the filing of the complaint under
Section 1QA before the Election Commission on Q2.12.2QQ9,
referred to the various dates of hearings when the Election
B Commission heard the parties, including the Appellant and the
impugned order dated Q2.04.2Q11 passed by the .Election
Commission, which was upheld by the Delhi High Court in W.P.
No.2511 of 2Q11 by order dated 3Q.Q9.2Q11. In his
submissions, he raised the following contentions:
c (a) A reading of Section 1QA along with Section 77(1)
and (2), 78 as well as Rules 86 to 89 would show that it
is only the Election Commission which can, on being
satisfied about the failure to lodge a correct account of
all election expenditure in the manner required by or under
D the Act, disqualify a candidate for the period specified in
the said provision.
(b) That Section 1QA is independent of Article 329(b) of
the Constitution and, therefore, there is no scope to hold
that the said provision is ultra vires.
E
(c) By virtue of Rule 89 read along with Section 1QA, it
cannot be held that only at the instance of DEO the
Election Commission can exercise its powers under
Section 1QA On the other hand, the satisfaction which
F could be arrived at by the Election Commission under
Section 1QA may be based on a report of the DEO or
after hearing the parties or upon an enquiry by the Election
Commission as per Rule 89, which uses the expression
'as it thinks fit'.
G (d) The present allegation against the Appellant is paid
news and advertisements, which were not accounted for
and which having not been disclosed by the Appellant in
the return, have now come to light through the Press
Council and other sources. Therefore, it could not have
H
ASHOK SHANKARRAO CHAVAN v. DR. MADHAVRAO 1271
KINHALKAR [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

been within the knowledge of the DEO in order to state A
that it is only at the instance of the DEO that the Election
Commission can hold any enquiry under Section 1OA of
the Act.
(e) The scope of jurisdiction of the Election Tribunal in
considering the validity of the Election of a member is 8
different from the power of disqualification that can be
passed by the Election Commission under Section 1OA
and, therefore, the dismissal of the Election Petition for
want of particulars cannot be a ground to thwart the
exercise of the power and jurisdiction of the Election C
Commission to pass orders under Section 1OA.
(f) The case on hand is covered by the decision of this
Court reported in LR. Shivaramagowda (supra)
inasmuch as this Court has already held that the D
Commission alone has the power to determine whether
the election account filed by a returned candidate is true
and correct for the purpose of Section 1OA of the Act.
(g) The decision in Sucheta Kripalani (supra) is no
longer good law inasmuch as the substratum of the said E
judgment having been erased by the subsequent
amendments to the Act once in 1956 and again in 1966
by which the whole scheme of the Act had undergone a
drastic change by which the scope of jurisdiction of the
Election Tribunal, as well as the power and jurisdiction F
of the Election Commission has been distinctly spelt out.
14. It is, therefore, contended that since the old Section
7(c), which provided for a disqualification without reference to
the satisfaction of the Election Commission, having been
replaced by Section 1OA which specifically uses the expression G
'the satisfaction of the Election Commission of India' and also
by using the expression 'about the lodging of the return', 'in
the manner as prescribed by or under the Act' and 'within the
time', were all expressions which demonstrate that the power
H
1272 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A of the Election Commission under Section 1OA was wide
enough to hold. an enquiry to find out the truthfulness and
correctness of the expenditure incurred by the Appellant in
order to pass appropriate order of disqualification.
15. The learned Senior Counsel, therefore, contended
B thatthe order of the Election Commission dated 02.04.2011,
as well as that of the High Court of Delhi dated 30.09.2011, do
not call for interference.
16. Mr. Sunil Kumar learned Senior Counsel who
C appeared for the Appellant in appeal (@SLP(C) No.21958 of
2013), supported the submission of Mr. Gopal Subramanium,
learned Senior Counsel and also contended that Section 1OA
does not empower the Election Commission to take oath, nor
assume the powers of a quasi-judicial authority and, therefore,
0 the Election Commission cannot exercise a jurisdiction to the
extent of passing the order of disqualification. According to
the learned Senior Counsel, the Act and the Rules make a
clear distinction as between lodgment and maintenance of
accounts. According to him, while lodgment is mere form,
E maintenance of accounts is one of substance. The learned
Senior Counsel submitted that Section 78 along with Rules
86 (3) and 89, only talk of lodgment of account and not
correctness of the account. According to the learned Senior
Counsel, after a reading of paragraph 22 of the L.R.
F Shivaramagowda (supra) judgment, it can only be ~aid that
failure of lodgment is a matter of form and the correctness or
otherwise of lodgment of accounts was not spelt out. The
learned Senior Counsel further contended that Section 77 only ·
talks of maintenance of accounts. It is a matter of substance
which will attract Section 123 (6) in which event the issue would
G be outside the jurisdiction of th.e Election Commission. The
learned Senior Counsel relied upon certain decisions of this
Court in Somnath Sahu v. The State of Orissa & Ors. -
1969 (3) SCC 384 and Common Cause (A Registered
H Society) v. Union of India & Ors. - (1996) 2 SCC 752 in
ASHOK SHANKARRAO CHAVAN v. DR. MADHAVRAO 1273
KINHALKAR [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.)

support of his submissions. The learned Senior Counsel apart A
from arguing about the scope of jurisdiction of the Elect[on
Commission under Section 10A of the Act also challenged
the order of the Election Commission dated 20.10.2011,
•
disqualifying the Appellant for a period of three years on merits
which order was also confirmed by the Division Bench in the . B
impugned order in this appeal. Mr. Sunil Kumar, while attacking
orders impugned in this Special Leave Petition contended that
the expenses incurred by the party cannot be held' to be
expenses incurred by the Appellant and, therefore, conclusion
of the Election Commission, in having held that the Appellant C
did not file the return of expenses in manner and as prescribed
by or under the Act, has liable to be set aside.
17. Ms. Pinki Anand, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in her submissions stated that
the said Respondents had not filed any election petition, D
therefore, the submission that the election petition has already
been dismissed for want of particulars, will not apply to them.
The learned Senior Counsel after referring to the complaint,
the reply filed by the Appellant and the form in which the
Appellant filed the accounts as well as the supplement letter of E
the DEO dated 01.12.2009, submitted that after deletion of
Section 143, the decision in Sucheta Kripalani (supra) could
longer survive. The learned Senior Counsel contended that
having regard to Rules 89 (4) and 86 (e) and (f), it is a
mandatory requirement for a candidate to file a true and correct F
account, and if the account is incorrect, Rule 89 (4) will get
attracted. Consequently, the power of the Election Commission
while holding an enquiry under Section 1OA fully .empowers
the Election Commission to examine the correctness of the
accounts as prescribed under the Act, namely, Sections 77 G
and 78 and therefore, has the jurisdiction to hold an enquiry
and pass the order of disqualification.
Hl. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel who·
appeared for the intervenor in l.A.No.2 of 2013, submitted that
H
1274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2Q14] 14 S.C.R.

A after the introduction of Section 1QA by the 1966 amendment
and a reference to Section 77 and 123 (6), it can no longer be
contended that even by submitting a nil return, the obligation
under Section 77 read with Section 123 (6) is complied with.
The learned Senior Counsel contended that the Election
B Commission had the power and duty to disqualify and the
reliance placed upon Sucheta Kripalani (supra) cannot be
permitted in the !ight of the subsequent change made in the
provisions of the Act. The learned Counsel, therefore,
contended that the Election Commission has got every
c jurisdiction to hold an enquiry and pass appropriate orders of
disqualification and the remedy has also been provided for
under Section 11 for the Election Commission to pass
appropriate orders for stated reasons to reverse the order of
disqualification.
D 19. Mr. Ashok Desai, learned Senior Counsel who
appeared for the Election Commission, prefaced his
submission by stating that free and fair election is the basic
feature of our democracy, which again is the basic structure of
the Constitution, that under Article 324 of the Constitution, the
E Election Commission is not only invested with plenary powers
but has got a constitutional obligation to organize a free and
fair election and that under Section 1QA, the power of the
Election Commission is much wider when it comes to the
. question of disqualification in contrast to an election petition,
F where the validity of an election can be challenged. The learned
Senior Counsel referred to the nature of allegations levelled
againsttheAppellantsin the above appeals, namely, Mr.Ashok
Shankarrao Chavan, Ms. Madhu Kora and Mr. Umlesh Yadav,
wherein the complaint disclosed the enormous unaccounted
G expense~ incurred by them. This was brought to the notice of
the Election Commission by the contestants in the case of Mr.
Ashok Shankarrao Chavan, by the Central Board of Direct
Taxes in the case of Mr. Madhu Kora and by the Press Council
in the case of Mr. Umlesh Yadav. The learned Senior Counsel
H
ASHOK SHANKARRAO CHAVAN v. DR. MADHAVRAO 1275
KINHALKAR [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

also submitted that in all the above cases, notice was duly A
issued to the Appellants calling for their remarks. The
submission of the learned Senior Counsel can be concretized
as under:
(a) The learned Senior Counsel by making a comparative
reading of Section 123(6) vis-a-vis Section 1OA, 8
submitted that while under Section 123(6), only a
candidate who contested the election can file a complaint,
under Section 1OA any person including an elector can
make the complaint.
c
(b) It was then pointed out that while for preferring a
complaint under Section 123(6) a period of limitation of
45 days from the date of the election is prescribed as
per Section 81, there is no prescribed time limit for
invoking Section 1OA and that what is expected is only a D
complaint to be filed within a reasonable time.
(c) Lastly under Section 123(6), a party who is concerned
with the allegation may be an aggrieved party who can
provide the source, while under Section 1OA a citizen
who is keen on purity of election can prefer a complaint. E
It was also pointed out that while an election petition would
be decided by Election Tribunal (High Court) namely, the
High ·court, the disqualification under Section 1OA can
be decided by an Election Commission.
20. Mr. Desai, learned Senior Counsel after referring to F
·the provisions of the Act, as it originally stood prior to its
amendments of 1956 and 1966, also referred to the decisions

• in Sucheta Kripalani (supra) and LR. Shivaramagowda
(supra). He submitted that in LR. Shivaramagowda
(supra), after the introduction of Section 1OA the scope and G
jurisdiction of Election Commission has been firmly stated and
that that position alone should prevail. The learned Senior
Counsel submitted that having regard to the wide powers
invested with the Election Commission under Section 1OA,
H
1276 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A which has been rightly recognized and approved by this Court
in LR. Shivaramagowda (supra), there is no scope for the
Appellant to contend that the Election Commission lacked
jurisdiction.
21. Having dealt with the rival contentions of the parties,
B it would be necessary to find out whether the impugned order
of the Election Commission is correct or not. For this, the
various provisions of the Constitution as well as the relevant
provisions as they originally existed prior to 1956 and 1966,
the amendments made to the Act and the provisions which
c are existing as on date are required to be noted. In fact, the
various provisions under the Act both prior to the 1956 and
1966 amendments and the provisions which are existing as
on date, were adverted to by the learned counsel appearing
for their respective parties, as there is a need to find out the
D implication of those provisions. The purpose is to find out an
answer to the question posed for consideration, namely,
whether under Section 1OAof the Act, the Election Commission
has been empowered to hold an enquiry to ascertain the
correctness or otherwise of the election expenses incurred by
E a returned candidate for the purpose of passing the order of
disqualification, either at the instance of the candidate who
also contested in the said election or by any other person or
based on any other information received by the Election
· Commission through some reliable s9urces. For the said
· F purpose, in our considered view, the following provisions under
the Constitution and the various sections under the Act and
Rules are required to be noted.
22. As far as the provisions of the Constitution are·
concerned, the relevant Articles are Articles 101 (3) (a) read
G with 102(1)(e) and 103(2), Article 190 (3)(a) read with 191
:(1)(e) and Article 192, Article 329(b) which·relates to the
Election Petition, Articles 327 and 328 which empower the
Parliament to make provisions by law to deal with the elections
-to Parliament and State Legislature respectively, Article 324(1)
H
ASHOK SHANKARRAO CHAVAN v. DR. MADHAVRAO 1277
KINHALKAR [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

which mentions the nature of powers and functions as well as A
the control of elections vested with the Election Commission.
The said Articles are, therefore, extracted hereunder:
101. Vacation of seats.
(1 )xxxxxxxxx B
(2)xxxxxxxxx
(3) If a member of either House of Parliament-
( a) becomes subject to any of the disqualifications
mentioned in clause (1) or clause (2) of article 102, c
or
· (b)xxxxxxxxx
102. Disqualifications for membership. (1) A person
shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, D
a member of either House of Parliament-
(a) xxx xxx xxx
(b) xxx xxx xxx
(c)xxxxxxxxx E
(d)xxxxxxxxx
(e) If he is so disqualified by or under any law made by
Parliament.
.103. Decision on questions as to disqualifications F
of members.- (1) If any question arises as to whether a
member of either House of Parliament has become
subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in clause
( 1) of article 102, the question shall be referred for the
decision of the President and his decision shall be final. G
(2) Before giving any decision on any such question, the ·
President shall obtain the opinion of the Election
Commission and shall act according to such opinion.

H
1278 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A 190. Vacation of seats.
(1) )()()()()()( )()()(
(2)xxxxxxxxx
(3) If a member of a House of the Legislature of a State.
B
(a) Becomes subject to any of the disqualifications
mentioned in clause (1) or clause (2) of article 191; or
191. Disqualifications for membership.(1) A person
shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being,
c a member of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative
Council of a State-
(a) xxx xxx xxx
(b) )()()( )()()( )()()(
D (c)xxxxxxxxx
(d)xxxxxxxxx
(e) If he is so disqualified by or under any law made by
Parliament. ·
E 192. Decision on questions as to disqualifications
of members. (1) If any question arises as to whether a
member of a House of the Legislature of a State has
become subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned
in clause (1) of article 191, the question shall be referred
F for the decision of the Governor and his decision shall
be final.
(2) Before giving any decision on any such question, the
• Governor shall obtain the opinion of the Election
Commission and shall act according to such opinion.
G
324. Superintendence, direction and con.trol of
elections to be vested in an Election Commission.
(1) The superintendence, direction and control of the
preparation of the electoral rolls for, and.the conquct of, .
H all elections to Parliament and to the Legislature of every
ASHOK SHANKARRAO CHAVAN v. DR. MADHAVRAO 1279
KINHALKAR [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

State and of elections to the offices of President and A
Vice-President held under this Constitution shall be
vested in a Commission (referred to in this Constitution
as the Election Commission).
327. Power of Parliament to make provision with
respect to elections to Legislatures. Subject to the B
provisions of this Constitution, Parliament may from time
to time by law make provision with respect to all matters
relating to, or in connection with, elections to either House
of Parliament or to the House or either House of the
Legislature of a State including the preparation of C
electoral rolls, the delimitation of constituencies and all
other matters necessary for securing the due constitution
of such House or Houses.
328. Power of Legislature of a State to make D
provision with respect to elections to such
Legislature. Subject to the provisions of this Constitution
and in so far as provision in that behalf is not made by
Parliament, the Legislature of a State may from time to
time by law make provision with respect to all matters E
relating to, or in connection with, the elections to the
House or either House of the Legislature of the State
including the preparation of electoral rolls and all other
matters necessary for securing the due constitution of
such House or Houses.
F
329. Bar to interference by courts in electoral
matters.-
(a) xxx xxx xxx
(b) No election to either House of Parliament or to the G
House or either House of the Legislature or a State shall
be called in question except by -an election petition
presented to such authority and in such manner as may
be provided for by or under any law made by the .
appropriate Legislature.
H
1280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014) 14 S.C.R.

A 23. Apart from the above constitutional provisions, the
unamended provisions under the erstwhile Act are Section 7(c)
to be read along with Section 8(b ). Then the existing provisions,
namely, Sections 143 and 144 relating to disqualification of
an elected candidate are also required to be noted, which are
B uu~e~ ·
S. 7. Disqualifications for membership of Parliament
or of a· State Legislature.- A person shall be
disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a
member of either House, of Parliament or of the
c Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State-
(a)xxxxxxxxx
(b) xxx xxx xxx
(c) if, having been nominated as a candidate for
D Parliament or the Legislature of any State or having acted
as an election agent of any person so nominated, he
has failed to lodge a return of election expenses within
the time and in the manner required by or under this
Act, unless five years have elapsed from the date by
.E ~ which· the return ought to have been lodged or the
Election Commission has removed the disqualification;
S.8. Savings
(a)xxxxxxxxx
F
(b) a disqualification under clause (c) of that section shall
not take effect until the expiration of two months from
the date by which return of election expenses ought to
have been lodged or of such longer period as the
Election Commission may in any particular case allow;
G
S.143. Disqualification arising out of failure to lodge
return of election expenses.- If default is made in
making the return of the election expenses of any person
Who has been nominated as a candidate at an election
H '
ASHOK SHANKARRAO CHAVAN v. DR. MADHAVRAO 1281
KINHALKAR [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

to which the provisions of Chapter VI 11 of Part V apply, or A
if such a return is found, either upon the trial of an election
petition under Part VI or by any court in a judicial
proceeding to be false in any material particular, the
candidate and his election agent shall be disqualified
for voting at any election for a period of five years from B
the date by which the return was required to be lodged.
S.144. Removal of disqualifications. - Any
disqualification under this Chapter may be removed by
the Election Commission for reasons to be recorded by
it in writing. C
24. After the 1956 amendment, there was an amendment
to Section 7(c) and Section 8(b). The amendment to Section
7(c) was relating to the alteration of the period, namely, from 5
years to 3 years within which time the occurrence of the event D
of disqualification would lapse. Under the amended Section
8(b), the power to decide the nature of default mentioned in
Section 7(c) was entrusted with the Election Commission.
Further, Section 123 in Chapter I of Part VII was substituted.A
new Section 140 about corrupt practice entailing E
disqualification based on finding of the Election Tribunal (High
Court) as well as the power of Election Commission to reverse
the disqualification under Section 148 was also introduced,
while Section 143 stood omitted.
25. That apart, the other relevant sections to be noted F
are Section 7, which has now been restricted to sub-clause
(a) and (b) alone. Section 8 deals with disqualification on
conviction of an offence. Section 8(4) prescribes as to how
the disqualification as provided under Section 8 would take
effect. Section 8A read with Section 99 prescribes how the G
disqualifications would take effect. Section 1OA prescribes the
disqualification to be imposed for failure to lodge account of
election expenses in the manner and as required by the Act.
Section 11 deals with removal of or reduction of the period of
H
1282 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R..

A disqualification. Chapter VIII under the head 'Election
Expenses' consists of Section 77(1) and (3), which specifies
as to how a separate and correct account is to be maintained
and the total of the expenditure which should not exceed the
prescribed limit. Section 78 specifies the requirement of
B lodging of account with the DEO as required under Section
77 within a stipulated time limit. Sections 80 to 116, barring
Sections 88 to 92 and 104 and 105, deal with the manner in
which an Election Petition is to be presented before the
Election Tribunal (High Court) and the various procedures as
c to how such Election Petition to be dealt with and ultimately
disposed of.
26. In Part VII under Chapter I in Section 123(6), the
implication of non-compliance of Section 77 is set out as one
of the corrupt practices. In Part VIU under Chapter IV, we find
D the power of the Election Commission under Section 146 the
procedure for holding an enquiry as required under Articles
103 and 192 of the Constitution is set out. Sections 146A to
146C prescribes the procedure to be followed by the Election
-Commission while holding the enquiry under Section 146.
E
27. Apart from the above provisions in the Act, Rules 86;
87, 88, 89 and 90 in Part VIII of the Rules are required to be
noted. The relevant statutory provisions in the Act and the Rules
which are required for our purpose are, therefore, extracted
F hereunder:
The Representation of the People Act. 1951
S.7. Definitions.-
(a)xxxxxxxxx
G (b) "disqualified" means disqualified for being chosen
as, and for being, a member of either House of
Parliament or of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative
Council of a State.

H
ASHOK SHANKARRAO CHAVAN v. DR. MADHAVRAO 1283
KINHALKAR [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

S.1 OA. Disqualification for failure to lodge account A
of election expenses.- If the Election Commission is
satisfied that a person-
(a) Has failed to lodge an account of election expenses,
within the time and in the manner required by or under
this Act, and B
(b) Has no good reason or justification for the failure,
The Election Commission shall, by order published in
the Official Gazette, declare him to be disqualified and
any such person shall be disqualified for a period of three C
years from the date of the order.
S.11. Removal or reduction of period of
disqualification.- The Election Commission may, for
reasons to be recorded, remove any disqualification
under this Chapter (except under section 8A) or reduce D
the period of any such disqualification.
S.77. Account of election expem;es and maximum
thereof.- (1) Every candidate at an election shall, either
by himself or by his election agent, keep a separate and E
correct account of all expenditure in connection with the
election incurred or authorized by him or by his election
agent between the date on which he has been nominated
and the date of declaration of the result thereof, both
dates inclusive. F
(2) The account shall contain such particulars, as may
be prescribed.
. (3) The total of the said expenditure shall not exceed such
amount as may be prescribed.
G
S.78. Lodging of account with the district election
. officer.- (1) Every contesting candidate at an election
shall, within thirty days from the date of election of the
returned candidate or, if there are more than one returned
H
1284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 14 S.C.R.

A candidate at the election and the dates of their election
are different, the later of those two dates, lodge with
the district, election officer an account of his election
expenses which shall be a true copy of the account kept
by him or by his election agent under section 77.
B S.79. Definitions. - In this Part and in Part VII unless
the context otherwise requires, -
(a) any reference to a High Court or to the Chief Justice
or Judge of a High Court shall, in relation to a Union
c territory having a Court of the Judicial Commissioner,
be construed as a reference to the said Court of the
Judicial Commissioner or to the Judicial Commissioner
or any Additional Judicial Commissioner, as the case
maybe;
D (b) "candidate" means a person who has been or claims
to have been duly nominated as a candidate at any
election;
(c) "costs" means all costs, charges and expenses of, or
incidental to, a trial of an election petition;.
E
S.80. Election Petitions.· No election shall be called in
question except by an election petition presented in
accordance with the provisions of this Part.
S.BOA. High Court to try election petitions.- (1) The
F Court having jurisdiction to try an election petition shall
beJhe High Court.
(2) Such jurisdiction shall be exercised ordinarily by a
single Judge of the High Court and the Chief Justice,
shall, from time to time, assign one or more Judges for
G that purpose:
Provided that where the High Court consists only of one
Judge, he shall try all election petitions presented to that
Court.
H (3)xxxxxxxxx
•
ASHOK SHANKARRAO CHAVAN v. DR. MADHAVRAO 1285·
KINHALKAR [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

S.81. Presentation of petitions.-(1 )An election petition A
calling in question any election may be presented on one
or more of the grounds specified in sub-section (1 )] of
section 100 and section 101 to the High Court by any
candidate at such election or any elector within forty-five
days from, but not earlier than the date of election of the B
returned candidate or if there are more than one returned
candidate at the election and dates of their election are
different, the later of those two dates.
Explanation. In this subsection, "elector" means a person
who was entitled to vote at the election to which the C
election petition relates, whether he has voted at such
election or not.
(3)xxxxxxxxx ·
S.83, Contents of petition.- (1) An election petition- D·
(a) shall contain a concise statement of the material facts
on which the petitioner relies;
'
(b) shall set forth full particulars ofariy corrupt practice
that the petitioner alleged including as full statement as E .:
possible of the names of the parties alleged to have
commission such corrupt practice and the date and place
of the commission of each such practice; and
(c) shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the
manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 F .·
(5of1908) for the verification of pleadings:
[Provided that where the petitioner alleges any corrupt
practice, the petition shall also be accompanied by all
affidavit in the prescribed form in support of the allegation
of such corrupt practice and the particulars thereof.]
(2)xxxxxxxxx
S.84. Relief that may be claimed by the petitioner.-
A petitioner may, in addition to claiming a declaration
H
1286 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 14 S.C.R.

A thatthe election of all or any of the returned candidates
is void, claim a further declaration that he himself or any
other candidate has been duly elected.
S.123. Corrupt practices.

8 (1)xxxxxxxxx
(2) )()()( )()()( )()()(
(3) )()()( )()()( )()()(
(4) )()()( )()()( )()()(
c . (5) )()()( )()()( )()()(
(6) The incurring or authorizing of expenditure in
contravention of section 77.
S.146. Powers of Election Commission. (1) Where
D in connection with the tendering of any opinion to the
President under article 103 or, as the case may be, under
sub-section (4) of section 14 of the Government of Union
Territories Act, 1963 (20 of 1963), or to the Governor
under article 1"92, the Election Commission considers it
E necessary or proper to make an inquiry, and the
Commission is satisfied that on the basis of the affidavits
filed and the documents produced in such inquiry by the
parties concerned of their own accord. it cannot come to
a decisive opinion on the matter which is being inquired
F into, the Commission shall have, for the purposes of such
inquiry, the powers of a civil court, while trying a suit under
the Code of Civil Procedure. 1909 (5 of 1908), in respect.
of the following matters, namely: -
(a) Summoning and enforcing the attendance of any
G person and examining him on oath;
(b) Requiring the discovery and production of any
document or other material object producible as
evidence;
H
ASHOK SHANKARRAO CHAVAN v. DR. MADHAVRAO 1287
KINHALKAR [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

(c) Receiving evidence on affidavits; A
,
(d) Requisitioning, any public record or a copy thereof
from any Court or officer
(e) Issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses
or documents. B
(2) The Commission shall also have the power to require
any person, subject to any privilege which may be
claimed be that person under any law for the time being
in force., to furnish information on such points or matters
as in the opinion of the Commission may be useful for or c
relevant to, the subject-matter of the inquiry.
(3) The Commission shall be deemed to be a civil court
and when any such offence, as is described in section
175, section 178, section 179, section 180 or section
D
228 of the Indian Penal Code (45of1860) is committed
in the view or presence of the Commission, the
Commission may after recording the facts constituting
the offence and the statement of the accused as provided
for in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5of1898)
to forward the case to a magistrate having jurisdicti9n to E
. try the same and the magistrate to whom any such case
is forwarded shall proceed to hear the complaint against
the accused as if the case had been forwarded to him
under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
.1898 (5 of 1898). F

(4) Any proceeding before the Commission shall be
deemed to be Judicial proceeding within the meaning
of section 193 and section 228 of the Indian Penal Code
(45of1860).
G
S.1468. Procedure to be allowed by the Election
Commission.- The Election Commission shall have the power
to regulate its own procedure (including the fixing of places
and times of its sittings and deciding whether to sit in public or
in private.) H
1288 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 14 S.C.R.

' A. The Conduct of Election Rules. 1961
Rule 86. Particulars of account of election
expenses.-(1)Theaccount ofelection e~penses to .be
kept by a candidate or his election agent urider section
77 shall contain the following particulars in respect of
B each item of expenditure from day to day; namely:-
( a) the date on which the expenditure was incurred or
authorised;
(b) the nature of the expenditure (as for example,
c travelling, postage or printing and the like);
(c) the amount of the expenditure-
(i) the amount paid;
(ii) the amount outstanding;
D
(d) the date of payment;
(e) the name and address of the payee;
(f) the serial !']!-Imber of vouchers, in case ofamount paid;

E (g) the serial number of bills if any, in case of amount
outstanding;
(h) the name and address of the person to whom the
amount outstanding is payable.
(2) A voucher shall be obtained for every item of
F
expenditure unless from the nature of the case, such as
postage, travel by rail and the like, it is not practicable to
obtain a voucher.
(3) All voucher shall be lodged along with the
G · account of election expenses, arranged according to the
date of payment and serially
numbered by the candidate or his election
agent arid such serial numbers shall be entered in the
account under item (f) of sub-rule (1 ).
H
ASHOK SHANKARRAO CHAVAN v. OR. MADHAVRAO 1289
KINHALKAR [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

(4) It shall not be necessary to give the A
particulars mentioned in item (e) of sub-rule (1) in regard
fo items of expenditure for which vouchers have not been
obtained under subcrule (2).
·Rule 87. Notice by distr•c.t elec.tion officer for
inspection of accounts.- The district election officer B
shall, within two days from the date on which the account.
of election expenses has been lodged by
a candidate under section 78, cause a notice to be
affixed to his notice board, specifying-
c
(a) the date o~ which the account has been lodged;
(b )the name of the candidate; and
(c) the time and place at which such account can be ·
inspected.
D
Rule 88 .. Inspection of account and the obtaining
of copies thereof.-Any person shall on payment ofa
fee of one rupee be entitled to inspect any such account
and on payment of such fee as may be fixed by the
Election Commission in this behalf be entitled .E
to obtain attested copies of such ac<XJunt or of any part
thereof.
Rule 89. Report by the distri.ct election officer as to
the lodging of the account of election expenses·
and the decision· of the Electio11 F
Commission thereon.- (1) As soon as may be after '
the expiration of the time specified in section 78 for the
lodging of the accounts of election expenses at any
election, the 1[district election officer] shall report to the
Election Commission- .G
. (a) the name of each contesting candidate;
(b) whether such candidate has lodged his account of·
election expenses and if so, the date on which such
account has been lodged; and H
1290 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 14 S.C.R.

A (c) whether in his opinion such account has been
lodged within the time and in the manner required by
the Act and these rules.
(2), Where the district election officer is of the opinion
that the account of election expenses of any candidate
B has not been lodged in the manner required by the Act
and these rules, he shall with every such report forward
to the Election Commission the account of election
expenses of that candidate and the vouchers lodged
along with it.
c
(3) Immediately after the submission of the report
referred to in sub-rule (1) the district election officer shall
publish a copy thereof affixing the same to his notice
board.
D (4) As soon as may be after the receipt of the report
referred to in sub-rule (1) the Election Commission shall
consider the same and decide whether any contesting
candidate has failed to lodge the account of election
expenses within the time and in the manner required by
E the Act and these rules.
(5) Where the Election Commission decides that a contesting
candidate has failed to lodge his account of election
expenses within the time and in the· manner required by
the Act and these rules it shall by notice in writing call upon
F the candidate to show:cause why he should not be
disqualified under section 1OA for the failure:
,
(6) Any contesting candidate who has been called upon
tohow causeunder sub-rule (5) maywithintwentydays
of he receipt of such notice submit in respect of the
G
matter a representation in writing to the Election
Commission, and shall at the same time send to district
. election officer a copy of his representation together with
a complete account of his election expenses if he had
not already furnished such an account.
H
ASHOK SHANKARRAO CHAVAN v. DR. MADHAVRAO 1291
KINHALKAR [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

(7) The district election officer shall, within A
five days of the receipt .thereof, forward to the Election
Commission the copy of the
representation and the account (if any) with
such comments as he wishes to make thereon.
(8) If, after considering the representation submitted B
by the candidate and the comments made by the district
election officer and after such inquiry as it thinks fit,
the Election Commission is satisfied that the candidate
has no good reason or justification for
the failure to lodge his account, it shall declare him C
to be disqualified under section 1OA for a period of
three years from the date of the order, and cause the _
order to be published in the Official Gazette. •
Rule 90. Maximum election expenses.- The total of D
the expenditure of which account is to be kept under
section 77 and which is incurred or
authorized in connection with an election in a State or
Union territory mentioned in column 1 of the Table below
shall not exceed-
E
(a) in any one parliamentary constituency of
that State or Union territory, the amount specified in the
corresponding column 2 of the said Table; and
(b) in any one assembly constituency, if any, of the State
. or Union territory, the amount specified in the F
corresponding column 3 of the said Table.
28. Having noted the various Articles of the Constitution
as well as the provisions of the Act, it will be worthwhile to
understand the whole scheme of the above articles and G
provisions before making any attempt to find out the scope
and ambit of Section 10Aof the Act. Article 101(3)(a) will have.
to be read along with Article 102(1 )(e). Article 101 (3)(a) merely
states about the consequences that would follow if a Member
of either House of Parliament suffers disqualification as . H
1292 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A provided under Article 102(1 )(e), namely, that the seat would
thereupon become vacant in the Parliament. The purport of
Article 102(1 )(e) is to ensure that any disqualification of a
Member of Parliament can be declared only by or under any
law made by the Parliament. That apart under Article 103 of
B the Constitution, whenever a question arises as to whether a
Member of Parliament has been disqualified as provided
under Article 102(1 ), the decision as to such a disqualification
can be reached only by the President of India, which would
become absolute and conclusive. However, under Article
c 103(2) it is provided that before arriving at such a decision,
the President should obtain· the opinion of the Election
·Commission and.act based upon such opinion of the Election
Commission.Articles 190(3)(a), 191(1)(e)and 192(1)&(2)are
the identical provisions, which would be applicable to a
o Member of a Legislature of the.State. The only difference is
under Article 192, it will be the Governor who can take the ·
decision and such a decision should be again based on the
opinion rendered by the Election Commission. Therefore,
. Articles 101, 102, 103, 190, 191 and 192 prescribe and
· E mention as to how a disqualification of a Member of a
Parliament or a Member of a State Legislature can be .given
··effect to either by the President of India or by the Governor of
the respective States by declaring the consequent. vacancy
created either in the Parliamenlorthe State Legislature. Under
F Article 102 (1) (e) and 191(1)(e), it is stipulated that such a
· disqualification shall have to be initially arrived at by applying
the provisions of law made by ttle Parliament. Therefore, the
· common thread in the above Constitutional provisions relatable
to a Member of a Parliament or a Member of a State
G Legislature is that apart from other disqualifications mentioned
. in Articles 102(1)(a) to (d) and 191(1)(a) to (d), 9. ·
. disqualification arrived at as provided under a law made by
the Parliament would form the basis for either the President of
India pr for the Governor of the respective States to ultimately
H
ASHOK SHANKARRAO CHAVAN v. DR. MADHAVRAO 1293
KINHALKAR [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

take a decision as regards such disqualification declared under A
a valid law made by the Parliament.
29. Apart from the above provisions, under Article 329(b ),
it is specified that an Election to either House of Parliament or
either House of the Legislature of a State, cannot be called in
·question except by an Election Petition presented to such B
authority in such manner as may be provided for by or under
any law made by the appropriate legislature. While Articles
101 to 103 and 191 to 192 deals with the disqualification of
an elected member either to the Parliament or to the State
Legislature, Article 329(b) relates to the validity of a member C
elected to any constituency in an election held in accordance
with law and such validity can be examined only by a
prescribed authority under the law made by the appropriate
legislature. Reading Article 329(b) and Sections 80to116 of
the Act together, the position emerges that the status ~fa validly D
e.lected candidate in an election can be called in question only
before the Election Tribunal (High Court) by way of an Election
Petition and such Election Petition to be decided by the
Election Tribunal (High Court) in the manner prescribed under
the above referred to provisions by following the procedures E
laid down therein. IUurther emerges that the validity of an
election to either of the House of Parliament or the State
Legislature cannot be called in question in any other manner
other than what has been prescribed under the provisions of
the Act, as has been set out in Sections 80 to 116 of the Act. F
· 30. Apart from the above Constitutional mandates,
relating to disqualification and validity of an election to be
challenged, under Articles 327 and 328 of the Constitution,
provides the power to Parliament to make provisions by law
to deal with the elections to Parliament and State Legislature G
and also by the State if such law does not contain any provision
to deal with an election to the said offices. Apparently, in the
purported exercise of the above Article 327 of the Constitution,·
the Representation of the People Act in the year 1950 and
H
1294 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A subsequently in the year 1951, came to be passed in the
Parliament and thereafter, the relevant rules, namely, the
Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 were also promulgated.
31. Under Article 324(1) of the Constitution in Part XV,
the nature of functions, powers such as superintendence,
8 issuance of directions, control of the preparation of the electoral
rolls, the conduct of all elections to Parliament and to the
legislature of every State, as well as the elections to the offices
/

of the President and Vice-President, as per the Constitution,
is invested with the Election Commission. When we discuss
C about the powers of the Election Commission, a detailed
reference to Article 324(1) can be made to Section 10Aofthe
said Act in the matter of disqualification of a Member of
Parliament or State Legislature.
D 32. Apart from the above Constitutional provisions, we
also refer to some of the provisions which were existing prior
to the 1956 and 1966 Amendments to the Act. One relevant
provision which has to be noted in the context of the present
Section 1OA of the Act is Section 7 (c) as it existed prior to the
E amendment.
33. Prior to the introduction of Section 1OA, Section 7(c)
prescribed as to how a person should be disqualified for being
chosen as and for being a Member of either House of the
Parliament or of a Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council
F of a State. It was stipulated that if a person having been
nominated as a candidate for Parliament or the Legislature of
a State fails to lodge a return of election expenses within time
and in the manner required by or under the Act, would suffer
such disqualification unless five years have elapsed from the
G date by which the return ought to have been lodged or the
Election Commission removed such disqualification. Section
8(c), Which was a non-obstante clause, specified that a
disqualification suffered under Clause (c) of Section 7, cannot
take effect unless the expiration of two months from the date
H by which return of the election expenses ought to have been
ASHOK SHANKARRAO CHAVAN v. DR. MADHAVRAO 1295
KINHALKAR [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

lodged or such longer period as the Election Commission may A
in any particular case allow. A reading of Sections 7(c) and
8(b) as it existed then, vested no specific authority with the
Election Commission or for that matter with any other authority
as to how a disqualification can be declared for the failure to
lodge a return of the election expenses within the time and in B
the manner required by or under the Act.
34. In fact, the subsequent amendment to Section 7(c)
only related to the expiration of a period of five years having
been altered as three years and in Section 8(c) it is stated that
the expiration of two months period would start from the date C
on which the Election Commission decided that the account
of election expenses has not been lodged within the time and
in the manner required by or .under this Act. Therefore, a
conspicuous reading of Sections 7(c) and 8(b), as it originally
existed, and after its amendment under Act 27 of 1956, D
remained the same ar;id the only improvement made was that
the decision as regards the failure to lodge the account within
the stipulated time limit is to be declared by the Election
Commission for Section 7(c) to operate.
E
35. The above prescription which existed prior to
introduction of Section 1OA has to be necessarily noted in order
to appreciate what is the effect that had been brought about
by virtue of the introduction of Section 1OA to the Act. Before
adverting to the scope of Section 1OA, it is necessary to note F
certain other provisions, namely, Sections 77, 78, 123(6) as
well as Rules 86, 87, 88, 89 and 90 of the Rules, since, the
implication of the above provisions and Rules would arise while
examining the effect of Section 10A after its introduction.
36. Section 77 which is under Chapter VIII mandates as G
to how the account of election expenses are to be maintained
and the maximum limit that can be expended as prescribed.
37. When we read Section 77(1 ), it is specified therein
that every candidate should keep a separate and correct
• H
1296 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A account of all the expenditure in connection with the election
that was incurred as between the date on ~hich his nomination .
was made and the date of declaration of the result thereof i.e.
inclusive of both the dates. A careful reading of Section 77(1)
makes it significantly clear that a candidate contesting in an
B election, should maintain a separate and correct acc;ount of.
all expenditure incurred by him in connection with the election.
Section 73(3) makes it mandatory that the. total of the
.expenditure in connection with an election should not exceed
. such amount as may be prescribed. Here and nciw we can
C point out that under Rule 90 of the Rules, the total of the
expenditure that can be expended for which account is to be
maintained under Section 77 has been prescribed in a
separate table applicable to different States, in respect of their
Parliamentary Constituency and Assembly Constituency.
o Therefore, reading Section 77(3) along with Rule 90 and
Section 77(1 ), what ultimately emerges.isthat every candidate
. contesting in an election should maintain a separate account
relating to the election, that such account should contain all the
expenditures incurred by him in connection with the electiqn
E and most importantly such details of the account and the
expenses incurred must reflect the correct particulars apart
from ensuring that such expenditure does not exceed the
maximum limit prescribed under Rule 90 a.s stipulated under
Section 77(3).
F 38. The next step is lodging of such an account which
was maintained as stipulated under Section 77 read with Rule
90. Section 78 of the Act mandates that every contesting
candidate in an election should within 30 days from the date
of election of the returned candidate, lodge with the DEO an
G account of his election expenses, which should be a true copy
of the account kept by him or by his election agent as required
under Section 77. The corresponding rules are Rules 87, 88
and 89 of the Rules.Under Rule87, within two days from the.
date on which the account of election expenses is lodged by
H
ASHOK SHANKARRAO CHAVAN v. DR. MADHAVRAO 1297
KINHALKAR [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

candidate, as stipulated under Section 78, the DEO should A
cause a notice to be affixed in the notice board, specifying the
date on which the account was lodged, the name of the
candidate and the time and place at which such account could
be inspected. Under Rule 88 any person would be entitled on
payment of a fee of Rs.1 to inspect any such account and on B
payment of such fee that may be fixed by the Election
Commission, obtain attested copies of such account or any
part thereof. Reading Section 78 and Rules 87 and 88, the
intention of the legislature has been explicitly made clear that
the maintenance of the correct account of the election expenses C
within the time limit prescribed in making such expenses is
not for the satisfaction of the Election Commission alone. The
purport and intent ofthe said exercise is to ensure that none of
the candidates can take it as a formality and file some return
without disclosing their correct particulars, inasmuch as once D
the true copy of the account maintained is lodged with the DEO
it is not only for the candidates who contested in the election
but 'any person' meaning thereby, any citizen of this country
can have access fo verify the account lodged with the DEO
and also get a authenticated copy of such a statement. In fact, E
such a stipulation contained in Sections 77(1) and (3), 78, Rule
90, as well as Rules 87 and 88 were brought into the statute
book in order to ensure that the purity in the election is
maintained at any cost and nobody is allowed to take the voting
public of this country for a ride. F
39. It will also be appropriate to state and we can even
. take judicial notice of the fact about every kind of manipulations
and malpractices that are being adopted and applied in
elections in the r.ecent past as is reported widely in the Press
and Media. Unlike the yester years, i.e. immediately after G
independence and the role of Election Commission while
holding the public elections has become so vital, a greater
and wider responsibility is imposed on the Election
Commission to ensure that those who contest the elections
H
1298 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A maintain high amount of integrity and honesty and that the voting
public are not duped by their evil designs. With that when we
come to Rule 89, the said rule contains sub-rules (1) to (8),
which specify to the extent to which the verification of the
correctness and genuineness of the accounts lodged can be
B enquired. Under sub-rule (1) of Rule 89,.after lodging of the
true copy of the account as specified under Section 78 of the .
Act, the DEO should report to the Election Commission as to
the name of each contesting candidate and state whether such
candidate lodged his account of election expenses and if so
c the date on which such account was lodged and whether the
account was lodged within the required time and in the manner ·
required by the Act and the Rules.
40. When we refer to the said stipulation, namely, the
manner required under the Act, it will have to be stated that the
D manner required would certainly include the true and correct
accounts to be maintained, a copy of which alone can be stated
to mean having been lodged in the manner required. In fact,
under sub-rule (2) of Rule 89, the DEO if on verification found
that the lodging of the account was not in the manner required,
E should send a report to that effect to the Election Commission
along with the accounts lodged by the candidate concerned.
The DEO should also publish a copy of his report in the notice
board. Under sub-rule (4) of Rule 89, after the receipt of the
report referred to in sub-rule (1 ), the Election Commission has
F to again consider the same and decide whether any contesting
candidate failed to lodge the account of election expenses
within the time and in the manner required by or under the Ad
and the Rules,
41. Under sub-rule (5) of Rule 89 when the Election
G Commission decides that a contesting candidate failed to
lodge his account of election expenses within time and in the
manner required by the Act as well as the Rules, it should by
notice in writing call upon the candidate to show cause why he
should not be disqualified under Section 1OA for such default.
H
ASHOK SHANKARRAO CHAVAN v. DR. MADHAVRAO 1299
KINHALKAR [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

Under sub-rule (6) of Rule 89, once the notice to show cause A
is issued as per sub-rule (5), within 2Q days of receipt of such
notice, the candidate concerned should submit a
representation in writing to the Election Commission and
simultaneously forward a copy to the DEO together with the
complete account of his election expenses, if he had not B
already furnished sucli an account. Under sub-rule (7) of Rule
89, the DEO should forward his report on the representation
so submitted by the candidate, if any, with such comments
which he wishes to make on the said representation.
42. Under sub-rule (8) of Rule 89, the Election C
Commission after such enquiry, as he thinks fit, on being
satisfied that no good reason or justification was shown for
the failure to lodge the account, can pass an order of
disqualification as provided under Section 1QA for a period of
three years from the date of the order and publish such order D
in the official gazette. We find in sub-rules (1) to (5), specific
reference to the mannigr required by the Act as regards the
account to be maintained, a true copy of which is to be lodged
with the DEO which is to be ultimately forwarded to the Election
Commission. E
43. When we examine sub-rule (8) of Rule 89, the said
Rule makes it clear that the Election Commission is
empowered to hold such enquiry as it thinks fit before passing
any orders under Section 1QA of the Act. The said exercise F
has to be carried out by the Election Commission after the
issuance of the show cause notice and after the receipt of
representation by the candidate read along with the comments
of the DEO. When the Election Commission has been invested
with the powers to hold an enquiry, it will have to be stated that G
such an enquiry is not an empty formality, but having regard to
the requirement of law as stipulated under Section 77(1) and
(3) and 78 of the Act, it should be a comprehensive enquiry,
wherein the Election Commission can ascertain whettierthe
accounts lodged in the. purported exercise of Section 78 by a H
1300 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A contesting candidate reflects a true, correct and genuine
account and not a bogus one. In fact, the purpose of holding
an enquiry is not only to ensure that the ascertainment of the
correctn,ess or otherwise of the account lodged, as well as,
the time within which such lodgment was made, but also ensure
B that such account is a true and correct account of the actual
expenses incurred for the election inasmuch as the Act as well
as the Rule makes it clear that such furnishing of the account
is in the manner required under the Act.
44. In our considered opinion if such a onerous
C , responsibility has been imposed on the Election Commission
while scrutinizing the details of the accounts of the election
expenses submitted by a contesting candidate, it will have to
be stated that while discharging the said responsibility, every
, care should be taken to ensure that no prejudice is caused to
D the contesting candidate. The Election Commission should
also ensure that no stone is left unturned before reaching a
satisfaction as to the correctness or the proper manner in which
the lodgment of the account was carried out by the concerned
candidate. If such a meticulous exercise has to be made as
E required under the law, it will have to be held that the onerous
responsibility imposed on the Election Commission should
necessarily contain every power and authority in him to hold
an appropriate enquiry. Only such an exercise would ensure
that in ultimately arriving at the satisfaction for the purpose of
F examining whether an order of disqualification should be
passed or not as stipulated under Section 10A, the high
expectation of the electorate, that is the citizens of the country
reposed in the Election Commission is fully ensured and also
no prejudice is caused to the contesting candidate by casually
G passing any order of disqualification without making proper
ascertainment of the details of the accounts, the correctness
of the accounts and the time within which such account was.
lodged·by the candidate concerned.

H
ASHOK SHANKARRAO CHAVAN v. DR. MADHAVRAO 13Q1
KINHALKAR [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KAL,IFULLA, J.]

45. When we examine Section 1QA in this context, it A
makes it clear that the Election Commission has to find out
whether a person has failed to lodge an account of election
expenses within the time and in the manner required by or
under this Act: The specific expression 'by or under' used in
Section 1QA( a) emphasizes that wherever the Act stipulates B·
as regards the maintenance and the lodgment of the account,
such stipulations in its substance would be the requirement
for the verification to be made while holding an enquiry under
Section 1QA. Section 1QA has been comprehensively eh acted
replacing earlier Sections 7( c) and 8(b) of the Act in order to C
ensure that the contesting candidate in an election cannot deal
with the expenses in regard to the election in any manner he
likes but such expenses can be incurred only in the manner
required under the law. Also, while incurring such expenditures,
a true and correct account should also be maintained and such D
expenditure should not exceed the prescribed limit as is
contemplated under Section 77(1) and (3) read with Rule 9Q.
If such a stringent provision for incurring election expenses
has been brought into the statute book and if the real intent'
and purpose of such provisions are not understood and allowed E
to be implemented in its true spirit, in our considered opinion,
it would provide scope for any contesting candidate to violate
such a statutory requirement flagrantly and ther<;iby, make the
provision a dead letter.
46. Under Section 1QA when the Election Commission, F
on being satisfied that a person failed to lodge an account of
election expenses within the time specified and in the manner
req_uired by or under this Act, can pass an order of
disqualification of such person for a period of three years from
the date of its order, it is needless io state that such an exercise G
should be carried out by the Election Commission with utmost
care and caution and not by merely finding that there is a
statement of account claimed to be a true copy of the election
expenses maintained by the candidate and that it was lodged
H
1302 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A with the DEO in the appropriate format. In such an event, the
concerned candidate can go.scot-free even in a case where it
can be brought to the notice of Election Commission that apart ·
from the expenses disclosed in the statement of expenses
lodged with the Election Commission, the candidate
B concerned had incurred various other expenses in a
clandestine manner by adopting various manipulations and
thereby, violating the requirement of law in particular Section
77(1) arrd (3) of the Act and thereby in effect not only cheatthe
electorate concerned, but. even a constitutional authority in
c whom a very heavy responsibility has been invested under
Artide 324(1) of the Constitution. In fact, the requirement of an
enquiry to be made by the ~lection Commission at the instance
of the President of the country under Article 103 and in the
case of Members of Parliament under Article 192 by the
D Governor of the State in the case of Member of Legislative
Assembly of the State, fortifies our above conclusion that even
the President of the country and the Governor of a State can
rely upon the report of the.Election Commission based on an
enquiry before taking a decision under Article 103(2) and under
E Article 192(2) of the Constitution. Therefore, to call the Election
Commission's responsibility before passing an order under
Section 1OA only to see the form and not substance as
canvassed b:y the Appellant is a proposition too difficult to
accept.
F 4 7. When we come to Section 143 falling under Chapter
I of Part VII, the said provision needs to be examined alongside
the explanation to sub-section (1) and (6) of Section 123. When
we read the explanation to sub-section (1), 'bribery' is stipulated
as one form of corrupt practices and yet proceeds to sfate
G that the act of bribery cannot be attributed to the payment of
,.
any expenses bona fide incurred for the purpose of any election
and duly entered into the account of election expenses referred
to in Section 78, i.e. the provision under which a contesting
candidate is mandated to lodge, a true copy ofthe election
H
ASHOK SHANKARRAO CHAVAN v. DR. MADHAVRAO 1303
KINHALKAR [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

expenses maintained by him, within 30 days from the date of A
the electio·n of the returned candidate. The said explanation
further reinforces the fact that maintenance of expenses, as
mandated under Section 77(1 ), should not only be correct, but
also be bona fide expenses. Therefore, even the explanation
to sub-section (1) to Section 123 makes it clear that incurring B
of election expenses and the maintenance of account of those
expenses are not an empty formality but the very purpose of
stipulating such restrictions and directions under Section 77(1)
and (3) read along with Section 78 explains the mandate to
maintain absolute purity in elections by the confesting · c·
candidates. This is required in order to ensure that the process
of the election is not sullled by resorting to unethical means,
while incurring election expenses.
48. It is common knowledge as is widely published in·
the Press and Media that nowadays in public elections payment' D.
of cash to the electorate is rampant and the Election
Commission finds it extremely difficult to control such a.
menace. There is no truthfulness in the attitude and actions of
the contesting candidates in sticking to the requirement of law;
in particular to Section 77 and there is every attemprbeing E ·
made to violate the restrictions imposed in the matter of
incurring election expenses with a view to woo the electorate
concerned and thereby, gaining their votes in their favour bi/
corrupt means viz by purchasing the votes. Therefore, this C.o'uit .
cannot turn a Nelson's eye and state that Section 77(1) and · F;
(3), as well as 78 would be relevant only for the purpose of·
ascertaining the corrupt practices under Section 123(6) of the ·.
Act and that such requirement of incurring bona fide and
correct expenditure need not be a requirement' for,
ascertainment for the Election Commission while exercising G
its powers under Section 10AoftheAct In fact, asceitajnment ·
of the requirement under Section 77(3) viz the expenses
incurred, do not exceed the limit prescribed and can be made
both for the purpose of an enquiry under Section 1OA; as Well .
1304 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A as in the event of a candidate exceeding the limit a~ a corrupt
practice forthe purpose of invalidating the election. Therefore,
the requirement under Section 77(3) has got twin objectives
to be fulfilled.
. 49. One other relevant provision under the Act is Section
B 146 falling underChapterlVofPartVlll. Section 146 is relatable
to Articles 103 and 192 of the Constitution. As was noted earlier
under Articles 103 and 192 of the Constitution in the case of a
Member of Parliament or a Member of State Legislature for
the purpose of ascertaining the fact about a member vacating
C his seat as a member, one of the requirements would be that
such a member is disqualified by or under any law made by
the Parliament. It is need.Jess td state that the act of
· disqualification referred to in Articles 102 or 190 of the
· Constitution, can be mainly referable to the law made by the
D Parliament viz the .Representation of the People Act. The
decision of the Pres.ident of India and the Governor of a State
depends upon the opinion of the Election Commission.
Section 146 of the Act prescribes the·procedure to be followed
before rendering the opinion to the President of India or the
E Governor of a State.
50. When it is stipulated under Articles 102(1)(e) and
191 (1 )(e) to the effect that the ascertainment of vacation of a
seat of a Member of Parliament or a Member of a State
F Legislature would depend upon a disqualification suffered by
or under thE! provisions of the Act, it will have to be held that the .
procedure to be followed for passing such an order of
disqualification should be befitting the requirement of Section
1DA or otherwise when an opinion is sought for from the
Election Commission under Article 103(2) or 192(2), it would
G be rather impossible for the Election Commission to sustain
any such order of disqualification. The Act in that respect cannot
be held to have imposed in the Election Commission a
responsibility which will not synchronise with the original order
H of disqualification to be made under Section 1DA of the said
ASHOK SHANKARRAO CHAVAN v. DR. MADHAVRAO 1305
KINHALKAR [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

Act and for the ultimate opinion to be rendered after such A
disqualification order is passed for the purpose of enabling
the President of India and the Governor of a State to take
appropriate decision for ascertaining the status of a member
to vacate his seat as a Member of Parliament or State
Legislature. It would be incongruous to visualise such a B
situation while reading Articles 101 to 103 and 190 to 192 of
the Constitution, read along with Sections 146 and 1OA of the
Act. We, therefore, have no hesitation in asserting the legal
position that an order to be passed under Section 1OA of the.
said Act, could be no less important than an opinion to be c
rendered by the Election Commission under Section 146 when
sought for by the President of India or the Governor of the
concerned States. In our considered opinion, therefore, the
exercise to be made under Section 1OA of the said Act would
certainly include the requirement of not a farce of ari enquiry o
but a true and complete one to determine whether the return of
election expenses by an elected candidate is a true/correct or
false/bogus return and that would not depend upon the decision
of the Election Tribunal (High Court), which is provided under
the Act for validating the election of a returned candidate on E
very many grounds set out in Section 123 of the Act, including
the one under Section 123(6) which contemplates the .
compliance of the requirement under Sections 77 and 78 -of
the Acf. However, it will _have to be stated that if the said issue
was squarely dealt with by the Election Tribunal (High Court) F
based on the entire materials that were also placed before
the Election Commission and the Election Tribunal (High Court)
had dealt with the said issue in detail and recorded a finding
after examining such materials threadbare, there is no reason
for the Election Commission to give due weight to such a G
finding of the Election Tribunal (High Court) while exercising
its jurisdiction under Section 1OA. With this we wish to deal
with the various submissions of the respective counsel.

H
1306 .. SUPREME COURT REPORTS· [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A 51 ~ Before adverting to the submissions of the learned
counsel forthe respective parties, it will be in order to note the
all~ged violations committed by the Appellants in the above
appeals, which prompted the Election Commission to initiate
the present proceedings under Section 1OA of the Act. Insofar
B as the Appellant in the appeal (@SLP(C) No.29882 of 2011)
is concerned, there were three complaints at the instance of
(i) Shri Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi, Member of Parliament, Bhartiya
Janata Party and five others, (ii) Dr Madhavrao Kinhalkar, one
.of lhe rival contestants at the aforesaid general elections from
c 85 Bokar Assembly Constityency and (iii) Dr. Kirit Somaiya,
Vice-President, Bhartiya Janata Party, Maharashtra and four
others. In their complaints submitted to the Election
Commission towards the end of November 2009 and
beginning of December 2009, itwas alleged that the Appellant
D Ashok Shankarrao Chavah got several advertisements
published in various newspapers, in particular, Lokmat,
Pudhari, Maharashtra Times and Deshonnati during the
election campaigning period, which appeared in those
newspapers in the garb of news eulogizing him and his
E achievements as Chief Minister of Maharashtra. It was further
alleged that the huge expenditure, which they described, was
incurred or authorized by the Appellant for getting those
advertisements published as news and is now a well-khown
phenomenon, as 'paid news'. The expenditure incurr~d or
F authorized on the publication of those 'paid news' was not
inqluded by the Appellant in his account of election expenses
as required under Section· 77 of the Act and lodged with the
DEO, Nanded under Section 78 of the Act. The Complainants
alleged that the Respondent showed only an expense of
G Rs;5379/- as the expenses of newspaper advertisement in his
account, whereas the expenditure on the above mentioned
'paid news' ran into several crores and it was suppressed in
his return of election expenses. Jn the complaint dated
30.11.2009 of Shri Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi and others, it was
H prayed that the account of the election expenses of the
ASHOK SHANKARRAO CHAVAN v. DR. MADHAVRAO 1307
KINHALKAR [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

Respondent should be enquired into and action should be A
taken against him under Section 1OA of the said Act.
52. Pursuant to the receipt of the above complaints, the
Appellant was called upon to submit his comments by the
Commission on 16,01.2010. The Appellant submitted his reply
on 29.01.201 O refuting all the allegations of the Complainants. B
The reply was forwarded to the Complainants on 5th and 9th
. February, 2010 and the Complainants filed their rejoinders in
February and March 2010. The Commission decided to hear
. the parties on 11.06.2010. In the meanwhile, the Commission
also obtained the comments of the Chief Electoral Officer, C ·
Maharashtra about the four newspapers and the allegations
of publishing 'paid news' relating to the Appellant. The
impugned order of the Election Commission states that all the
four newspapers denied the allegation of any payment having
been made to them by the Respondent for the publication of D
the alleged 'paid news'. According to the newspaper
establishments, the alleged 'paid news' were in fact news or
editorials and supplements published by them gratuitously as
they had links with or leanings towards the Congress Party
. and the Appellant. When the matter was posted for·hearing, a E
preliminary objection was raised questioning th~ jurisdiction
of the Election Commission to hold an elaborate enquiry in
exercise of its powers under Section 1OA and while dealing
with said preliminary issue,, the Election Commission relied
upon the decision of this Court in LR. Shivarall)agowda F
(supra) and reached a conclusion that the commission had
every jurisdiction under Section 1OA to go into the question of
alleged incorrectness or falsity of the election exp.enses
maintained by the Appellant under Section 77(1) and (2) and·
lodged by him under Section 78 of the Act.The Commission, G
therefore, decided to hear the matter on merits to be held on
29.04.2011 at4 p.m. in the Commission Secretariat. The said
order was the subject matter of challenge. The said order of
the Election Commission cam.e tO be uphe,ld by the Division
H
1308 : SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 14 S.C.R.

A Bench of the Delhi High Court in the order impugned dated
30.09.2011 in Writ Petition (C) No.2511 of 2011.
53. Insofar as the Appellant in the appeal (@ SLP(C)
No.14209 of 2012) is concerned, he submitted his accounts
of election expenses along with the register and vouchers to
8 the tune of Rs.18,92,353/-as per the requirements of Section
78 of the said act, to the DEO West Singhbhum, Chaibasa,
Jharkhand on 01.06.2009, who in turn submitted this report to.
·the Election Commission on o·8.10.2010, as per the
requirements of Rule 89 of the Rules. It was alleged that the.
C Election Commission after receiving the report failed to act
as per the requirements of Rule 89(4 ), which envisaged the
commission to decide the issue as soon as possible after the
submission of the report by the DEO. It was further alleged
that after about 15 months from the submission of the report
D by the DEO, the Ele.ction Commission on 07.10.201 O issued
a show' cause notice unoer Rule 89(5) of the Rules to the
Appellant, for the reason being that he failed to lodge his
election expenses in the manner required by law and
demanded as to why he shouldn't be disqualified under Section
E 1OA of the said act. Pursuant to his notice, the Appellant
explained on :?4.10.201 Othat the vouchers were misplaced ii")
the DEO's office and were again provided to the DEO on
08.10.2010 and therefore, requested the Election Commission
to treat the notice dated 07.10.2010 as withdrawn. Subsequent
F to this. reply, it was alleged thatthe Election Commission, 4
months after the submission of the representation by the
·Appellant on 22.11.2011, again issued a fresh show cause
notice to the him under Rule 89(5) read with Section 10A,
stating therein that they were in further receipt of a report from
G. the Income Tax Department, which alleged that prima facie,
the account filed by the Appellant was incorrect and as to why
he shouldn't be disqualified. The Election Commission along
with this notice, sent a copy of the alleged summary of findings
by the· Income Tax Deparim·ent, which showed the election
H
ASHOK SHANKARRAO CHAVAN v. DR. MADHAV.RAO 1309
KINHALKAR [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

expenses incurred to the tune of Rs.9,32,56,259/-. The A
authorized total expenditure of which account is to be kept and
· can be incurred in one parliamentary constituency in the state
of Jharkharid as per Section 77 read with Rule 90 is Rs.
25,00,000/-. The Appellant replied to this notice by stating that
as he was in jail and was having severe health issues, and B
therefore, requested the Election Commission to grant him
more time for inspecting the documents, to which a period of
20 days was granted. The Election Commission subsequently .
passed an order on 02.02.2011 in the similar and identical
case of Ashok Shankarrao Chavan, concluding that the c
Commission has undoubted jurisdiction under Section 1OA to
go into the question of the alleged incorrectness or falsity of
the return by the candidate under Sections 77(1) and 77(2),
lodged under Section 78. Aggrieved by this order, the Appellant
herein filed Writ Petition(C) No.4662 of 2011 before the Delhi D
High Court, which was thereby dismissed by the Court in view
of the order already passed by it in Writ Petition (C) No. 2511
of2011.
54. In so far as the appeal (@SLP(C) No.21958 of2013)
is concerned, the Appellant was a candidate from 24 Bisauli E
Assembly Constituency U.P. in the General Assembly Election
of 2007 from a party, namely, Rashtriya Parivartan Dal. Sri
Yogendra Kumar, the 2"d Respondent, was also a contesting
candidate from the said constituency. The polling in· the
constituency was scheduled to take place on 18.04.2007. A F
day before the date of polling, a publication was made in a
newspaper 'Amar Ujala' dated 17.04.2007 mentioning that
there is a wave in favour of the Appellant in the election and
the voters have made up their mind to support the Appellant. A
. similar publication was also made in the newspaper 'Dainik G
Jagaran' dated 17.04.2007. The poling took place on
18.04.2007 and the Appellant was declared as an elected
member of the U.P. Legislative Assembly. On 27.04.2007 a
complaint was submitted by the Respondent No.2 to the Press
H
1310 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 14 S.C.R.

A Council of India that the newspapers Amar Ujala and Dainik
Jagaran, were in violation of journalistic conduct and have
published one sided news item in the form of advertisement in
favour of the Appellant by taking huge sums of money on
17.04.2007, i.e. after the close of the campaigning an9 the
B day before the poll. On 12.05.2007 the Appellant submitted
the accounts of his election expenses before District Election
Officer as required by Section 77 and 78 of the Act. The Press
Council of India issued notices to both the newspapers on
09.08.2007, to which both the papers submitted their reply
c before the Press Council of India that the publication was not
a news item but an advertisement. It was stated in the reply
that at the bottom, the word 'ADVT' was appended and it was
further submitted that the material, which was published was
giv_en to the Press on behalf of the Appellant arid was not
D materials collected by the correspondents of the newspaper.
The Press Council thereby, decided the complaint vide order
dated 31.03.2010, wherein it held that the publication though
camouflaged as news items, in reality it was only an
advertisement. It further held that the newspapers Amar Ujala
E and Dainik Jaga·ran were guilty of ethical violation.
Subsequently, after receiving the order dated 31.03.2010 from
the Press Council of India vide letter dated 04.05.2010, the
Commission called for a report from the Chief Electoral Officer ·
U.P. regarding expenditure on the advertisement dated
F 17.04.2010 to which the Chief Electoral Officervide his letter
dated 10.05.2010 forwarded the report dated 09.05.2010 of
the DEO. The DEO in his report had stated that the expenditure
was not clear from the returns submitted by the Appellant. The
Election Commission thereby issued a notice dated ·
G · 22.06.2010 to the Appellant stating that in the account of the
election expenses, the expenditure incurred for the two
advertisements dated 17.04.2007 were not reflected and
thereby, attracted disqualification under Section 1OA for a
period of three years. The Appellant thereby submitted a reply
H on 18.07.2010 stating that the publication of the above items
ASHOK SHANKARRAO CHAVAN v. DR. MADHAVRAO 1311
KINHALKAR [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

in the newspapers were neither ordered by the Appellant nor A
by her election agent. On 19.08.2010, the Election
Commission requested the newspapers to send copies of all
the relevant documents pertaining to the publication dated
17.04.2007 .. 0n 06.01.2011, the Election Commission again
wrote to the Appellant stating that the account of election B
expenses lodged by her as per Section 78 of the Act had not
reflected the proper and correct expenditure and a hearing
was thereby fixed on 04.02.2011. In the hearing it was
submitted by the Appellant that the advertisement given by her
party was only in a small box size 7 x 6 ems. for which an amount C
of Rs.840 was paid to the Daily Amar Ujala vide bill dated.
17.04.2007. The Election Commission after hearing the
Appellant and the Respondent No.2, .vide its order dated
20.10.2011 held the Appellant to be guilty of breach of the
provisions 78 and 1OA of the Act and accordingly disqualified D
her for a period of three years. Subsequent to this order, a writ
petition was filed by her on 05.11.2011, challenging the order
of the Election Commission in Writ Petition No.63965 of 2011
before the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad, which dismissed
the s.aid writ petition vide the judgment and order dated E
03.05.2013.
55. In recent times, when elections are being held it is
widely reported in the Press and Media that money power plays
a very vital role. Going by such reports and if it is true then it is
highly unfortunate that many of the voters are prepared to sell · F
their votes for a few hundred rupees. In fact, taking advantage
of the weakness of the voters, exploitation to the maximum
level is being carried out by those wh9 aspire to become either ,
Member of Parliament or State Legislature. We are pained to
state that the sanctity of the status as a Member of the G
Legislatures, either Parliament or State Legislature are not
being seriously weighed even by those who sponsor their
candidature. It is a hard reality that if one is prepared to expend
money to unimaginable limits only then can he be preferred to
• H
1312 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A be nominated as a candidate for such membership, as against
the credentials of genuine and deserving candidates. If such
practices are to be simply ignored and a laudable object with
which the Act has been brought into the statute book as early
as in the year 1950 and later on by the Act of 1951, wherein by
B virtue of the Constitutional provision under A'rticle 324 an
authority in the status of the Election Commission is created
in order to supervise and control the elections, it must be stated
that such an authority who is in ultimate control in the matter of
holding of the elections should be held to be invested with the
c widest power of its kind specified in the Act. Therefore, when
it comes to the question of interpretation of the extent of such
power to be exercised by the said authority, we are convinced
that the Court should have a very liberal approach in interpreting
the nature· of power and jurisdiction vested with the said
D authority, namely, the Eiection Commission. This view of ours
is more so apt in the present day context, wherein money
power virtually controls the whole field of election and that
people are taken for a ride by such unscrupulous elements
who wan.! to gain the status of a Member of Parliament or the
E State Legislature by hook or crook.
56. In this context, we also keep in mind the Preamble to
the Constitution which in liberal words states that the people
of India having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a
sovereign, social, secular, democratic, republic and to secure
F to all citizens justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. In such a
'iarge democratic country such as ours, if purity in elections is
not maintained and for that purpose when the constitution
makers in their wisdom thought it fit to create an authority,
namely, the Election Commission and invested with it the
G power of superintendence, control and also to issue directions,
it must be stated that such power invested with the said
constitutional authority should not be a mere empty formality
but an effective and stable one, in whom the citizens of this
. country can repose in and look upon to ensure that such
H
ASHOK SHANKARRAO CHAVAN v. DR. MADHAVRAO 1313
KINHALKAR [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

unscrupulous elements and their attempts to enter into political A
administration of this vast country are scuttled. In that respect,
since the ruling of this vast country is always in the hands of
the e.lected representatives of the people, the enormous
powers of the Election Commission as the guardian of
democracy should be recognized. It is unfortunate that those B
who are really interested in the welfare of society and who are
incapable of indulging in any such corrupt practices are virtually
sidelined and are treated as totally ineligible for contesting
the elections ..
57. Having noted the above features in the case of each C
of the Appellant which has gone before the Election
Commission, wherein the impugned orders came to be
passed, we proceed to deal with the submissions made on
behalf of the Appellants, as well as the counsel for the
Respondents and the learned counsel for the Election D
Commission. In the first instance, Mr. Gopal Subramanium,
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant in the
appeal (@SLP(C) No.29882 of 2011) submitte9 that one of
the Complainants before the Election Commission who was
an unsuccessful candidate in the very same election in which E
the Appellant was successfully elected, also challenged the
said election in an Election Petition which was enquired into
by the Election Tribunal (High Court) in Election Petition No.11
of 2009 and that the same came to be dismissed for want of
material facts. The said decision of the Election Tribunal (High F
Court) was also stated to be confirmed by this Court in Civil
Appeal No.9271 of 2012 in the order dated 21.01.2013. The
learned Senior Counsel therefore, conten<;!ed that the Election
Tribunal (High Court) having concluded the issue while rejecting
the Election Petition stated that there cannot be a further G
complaint before the Election Commission as the same is not
permissible in law.. Per contra, it was contended on behalf of
the Respondents thatthe scope and jurisdiction of the Election
Tribunal (High Court) is entirely different from the one conferred
H
1314 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A on tt:ie Election Commission under Section 1OAoftheAct and,
therefore, the dismissal of the Election Petition preferred by
one of the Complainant's cannot be a ground to reject the
complaint, which is required to be dealtwith under Section
1OA of the Act. We find force in the submission of the learned
B couns.el for the Respondents.As was pointed out by us earlier,
the challenge to an election by way of an Election Petition is ·
provided for under Article 329(b) of the Constitution and the
manner in which such Election Petition is to be filed and the
. procedure to be followed were all set out in Sections 80 to
C 116oftheAct,
58. It is true that Article 329(b) specifically stipulates that
no election can be called in question except by way of an
Election Petition. When we peruse the various stipu[ations
contained in Sections 80 to 116 of the said Act, we find that
D under Section 80 it is reiterated that no election shall be called
in question except by an Election Petition presented in
accordance with the provisions of this Part, namely, Part VI of
the Act. Section 83 stipulates that an Election Petition should
contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the
E Appellant relies, set-forth full particulars of any corrupt practice
that the Appellant alleges, including a full statement of the
possible names of the parties alleged to have committed such
corrupt practice and the date and place of the commission of
each such practice, which should be signed by the Appellant
F concerned and verified in a manner as provided in the Code .
of Civil Procedure for verification of pleadings. The proviso to
Section 83( 1) states that where the Appellant alleges .any
. corrupt practice, the Petition should also be accompanied by
an affidavit in the prescribed form in support of the allegation
G of such corrupt practice and the particulars thereof. It is based
on such contents in the Election Petition as provided under
Section 83, the trial of Election Petition will be made by the
Election Tribunal (High Court) and the various other provisions
describe the procedures which are to be followed, including
H
ASHOK SHANKARRAO CHAVAN v. DR. MADHAVRAO 1315
KINHALKAR [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

the relief to be ultimately granted which is provided for and A
that is the scope and ambit of jurisdiction that could be
exercised by an Election Tribunal (High Court).
59. As compared to the nature of proceedings of an
Election Petition, when we examine the scope and jurisdiction
of the Election Commission under Section 1OA, at the outset 8
it must be stated that the power and jurisdiction therein does
not clothe the Election Commission to deal with the successful
election of the candidaie concerned. In other words, exercising
power under Section 1OA, the Election Commission cannot
set aside the election of a successful candidate. Section 1OA C
talks of only an order of disqualification that can be passed by
an Election Cornmission. Further, such disqualification order
can be passed for failure to lodge an account of election
expenses and such failure was within the time and in the
manner required by or under the Act. Therefore, the scope of D
an Election Petition to be tried by an Election Tribunal (High
. Court) and the scope pf an order of disqualification to be
passed under Section 1OA are entirely different and it must be
stated that one does not conflict with the other. The very same
allegation of a corrupt practice may form part of the failure to E
lodge the account in the manner required by or under the Act
as has be.en specified in Sections 77 and 78 of the Act in an
Election Petition. Therefore, simply because such an issue
may form part of a corrupt practice as provided under Section
123(6) and the failure may be in contravention of Section 78 F
of the Act, it may also be one of the grounds in challenging the
successful election of a candidate concerned in an Election
Petition. On that score, it cannot be held that the area of
disqualification to be considered by the Election Commission,
under Section 1OA, is fully covered in an Election Petition and G
thereby, the power and jurisdiction of the Election Commission
would stand excluded. It cannot therefore, be contended that
once the Election Petition having been rejected for want of
particulars, which order has become final, a complaint under
H
1316 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A Section 1OA cannot be pursued. We therefore, reject the said
contention raised on behalf of the Appellant.
60. The next submission of Mr. Gopal Subramanium,
learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant was that the provision
for disqualification was originally incorporated in Section 7(c)
B of the 1950 Act, which has now been restruciured in Section
10A, that the provision of Section 7(c) was interpreted by this
Court in Sucheta Kripalini (supra), wherein this Court has
ruled that the requirement of lodgment of the account of election
expenses is only in form and not in substance and that the
C said legal position continued even after the introduction of
Section 10A. The learned Senior Counsel while referring to
the subsequent decision of this Court on Section 1OA reported
in LR. Shivaramagowda (supra) contended that having
regard to the fact that the decision in Sucheta Kripalani
D (supra) is the decision of a Constitution Bench of this Court, a
contrary view expressed in LR. Shivaramagowda (supra),
a three Judge Bench decision calls for reconsideration.
61. Meeting the above submissions of the learned
E counsel for the Appellant, Mr. Bhushan, learned Seriior Counsel
and Mrs. Pinki Anand, learned Senior Counsel for the
contesting Complainants before the Election Commission and
Mr. Ashok Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
Election Commission, contended that the scope and ambit of
F Section 7(c) as it originally stood, as well as the subsequent
amendments to it, read along with Section 8(b), was far
different from the present Section 1OA and, therefore, what·
was ruled while examining Section 7(c) of the 1950Act in the
decision reported in Suchela Kripatani (supra) can have rio
application to the present Section 1OA of the Act. The learned
G Senior Counsel, therefore,"submitted that the decision in LR.
· Shivaramagowda (supra), which squarely dealt with the
scope and power of the Election Commission as adumbrated
in Section 1OA alone would apply and the same does not call
for any further reconsideration.
H
ASHOK SHANKARRAO CHAVAN v. DR. MADHAVRAO 1317
KINHAb.KAR [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.J

62. Having considered the respective submissions of the A
learned counsel, we are also convinced that the decision in
L.R. Shivaramagbwda (supra) does not call for
reconsideration. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior
Counsel for the Election Commission, as well as the other
learned counsel for the Respondents, the scope and ambit of B
Section 7(c) has been widened by metes and bounds in ·
Section 1QA in its present form. In Section 7(c), th.ere is no ·
reference to any positive order to be passed by any authority
much less an Election Commission specifying the
. disqualification suffered. On a reading of Section 7(c) along c
· with Section 8(b ), as it originally stood, there is no scope to
hold that the failure to lodge a return of election expenses within
thetime and in the manner required by or under the Act can be
examined by an Election Commission in a manner known to
law. Therefore, an order of disqualification to be passed based D
on such examination or enquiry should precede such an order.
On the contrary, as has been explained in detail about the scope
of Section 1QA read along with Section 77(1) and (3), Section
78 and Rules 86 to 9Q, we find that the failure to lodge an
account of election expenses within the time and in the manner E
required by or under the Act would result in serious
consequences and consequently, such a failure would result
in an order of disqualification to be passed by the Election
Commission. When we read Section. 1QA as compared to
Sections 7(c) and 8(b), as it originally stood, Section 1QA in F
its very opening words, empowers the Election Commission
on being satisfied about the defects in the lodging of the account
of election expenses as·contemplated under Section 77(1)
and (3) read along with Section 78 and the Rules 86 to 9Q, to
pass an order and publish it in the official gazette, as regards G
the disqualificatio.n period of which is prescribed as three years
from the date of the order. Such a detailed nature of power,
now prescribed under Section 1OA, was not provided for under
·Section 7(c) read along with Section 8(b), as it originally stood.
H
1318 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2Q.14] 14 S.C.R~ '
. ' ' '

A· · . 63: Further, a consideration of the implication of Articles i · '
' • •• - • ' ·-. - > ~

1Q1 (3)(a), 1Q2(1 )(e) and 1Q3, as well as 19Q(3)(a), 191 (1 )(e) •
and 192 of the Constitution read aiong with Section 146 of the
Act having been exhaustively noted by us in the earlier part of
the judgment, it will have to beheld that the power under Section
B ·1QA is wide enough for the Election Commission to deal with·
the issue of disqualification on the ground of failure to lodge
the account of election expenses within the.time and in the
manner required by or under the Act for deciding the issue
•
whether an order of disqualification should be passed against
C a contesting candidate. In fact, while the scope of consideration
by the Election Tribunal (High Court) will be in relation to the
validity of election of a successful candidate by the other
contesting candidates and the ultimate conclusion by the
Election Tribunal (High Court) may be either validating the
D election or'invalidating th·e election by setting it aside, the power
under Section 1QA would apply to all the candidates who
contested in the election, who have to mandatorily comply with
the requirement of Section 77(1) and (3) as well as Section
78 along with the prescribed rules in that respect. Therefore,
E the submission that urider Section 1 QA the Election
Commission cannot venture to hold an enquiry for the purpose
of passing an order of disqualification in the light of the decision
of the Election Tribunal (High Court) in the case of the Appellant
in the appeal(@ SLP(C) 29882 of 2Q11) is a far-fetched one.
F 64. As far as the earlier decision of the Constitution Bench
of this Court reported in Sucheta Kripalani (supra) is
concerned, the said decision having stated that the lodging of
a return of election expenses is. one of form and not of-
substance was held on the anvil of Section 7(c), as it originally
G stood, and since the ambit and scope of Section 1ciA which
· replaced Sections 7(c) and 8(b) of the 195Q Act being wider
in ambit and scope and as also the power of the Election
Commission has also been widened for passing an o"rder of:·
disqualification, the said decision can have no application: On ·
H
ASHOK SHANKARRAO CHAVAN v. DR. MADHAVRAO 1319
KINHALKAR [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.] ·

the other hand, in the decision in LR. Shivaramagowda A
(supra), this Court after examining the implication of Section
1OA has stated the legal position in uncontroverted terms as
under in paragraph 22:
"22 ........ in our opinion, sub-sections (6) of Section 10A
takes care of the situation inasmuch as it provides for 8
lodging an account of election expenses in the manner
required by or under the Act. Section 77(2) provides that
the account shall contain such particulars as may be
prescribed. Rule 86 of the Conduct of Election Rules
provides for the particulars to be set out in the account. C
The said rule prescribes that a voucher shall be obtained
for every item of expenditure and for lodging all vouchers
along with the account of election expenses. Rule 89
provides that the District Election Officer shall report to
the Election Comrl)ission, the name of each contesting D
_candidate, whether such candidate has lodge his account
of election expenses, and if so, the date on which such
account has been lodged and whether in his opinion,
v
such account has been lodged within that time and in the
manner required by the Act and the Rules. That rule E
enables the Election Commission to decide whether a
contesting candidate has failed to lodge his account of
election expenses within the time and in the manner
required by the Act after adopting the procedure
mentioned therein. If an account is found to be incorrect F
or untrue by the Election Commission after enquiry under
Rule 89, it could be held that the candidate had failed to
lodge his account within the meaning of Section 1OA and
the Election Commission may disqualify the said person.
Hence, we do not find any substance in.the argument of G
learned counsel for the first respondent."
65. Therefore, the said conclusion reached by this Court.
in the said decision fully covers the issue raised and we hold .. ,···
that the order of the Election Commission, which has now been
H
1320 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014]14 S.C.R.

A upheld- by the High Court in stating that it has got every
jurisdiction to enquire into the complaint made before it as
regards the incorrect and untrue statement of accounts of
election expenses lodged by the Appellant tan be enquired
·into. for the purpose of passing an order of disqualification under
B Section.1 OA, is perfectly justified,. ;
66. The.contentionof Mr. Gopal Subramanium, learned
-Senior Counsel that the proposed action ·of the Election
Commission to conduct an enquiry· under Section 1OA would
conflict with the power to be exercised in an Election Petition
C under Article 329(b) and thereby ultimately in the event of an
order of disqualification being passed would result ih virtually
setting aside the election of a successful candidate and ·
therefore the impugned order of the Election Commission, as
confirmed by the High Court, cannot be sustained. l,n dealing
D with the said contention, it will have to be noted tliat having
regard to the scope of Articles .101 to 103 and 190 to 192 of
the Constitution', any order of disqualification passed against
a Member of Parliament or a Member of a Legislature will
have to be considered by the President of India and the
E Goverrior of a State respectively for taking a decision as to
the consequence that should follow by reason of such an.order
of disqualification. Even at that stage, there is another filter
. point in the forin of an opinion to be rendered by the Election ·
Commission to the President of India or the Governor of the
F State before taking a decision as to whether the member
elected should vacate his office pursuant" to such
disqualification:·For the reasons which we have elaborately
stated while dealing with the scope and power of jurisdiction
of the Election Tribunal (High Court) and lhe power of the
G Election Cdrrimission under Section 1OA, It will have to be
stated that the said submission no longer·survives for
consideration. The same is, therefore, rejected.
67. The other submission of Mr. Gopal Subramanium,
· learned Senior Counsel was on the issue of locus standi. The
H
ASHOK SHANKARRAO CHAVAN v. DR. MADHAVRAO 1321
KINHALKAR [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

contention was that the Complainants were neither voters nor A
. losing candidates, that the legislative scheme does not provic:le ·
for an opportunity to a person who wishes to oppose the
explanation offered by the candidate and that though Section
1QA applies to all candidates, the Election Petition can be filed
only against an elected candidate. It was therefore contended B
that the complainants have no way to invoke Section 1QA and
that if a.tall any enquiry can be held by the Election Commission,
it can be only under Articles 1Q3 or 192 at the instance of the
President of India or the Governor of the State.
68. To counter the said submission, it was contended by C ·
Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Ms. Pinki Anand and Mr. Ashok Desai,
learned Senior Counsel and Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned
counsel that such a restricted meaning cannot be applied to
·Section 1QA. The learned counsel for the· Respondents by
referring to Section 1QA and the Rules, in particularRule 88 D
pointed out that under Rule 88, after the account of election
expenses are lodged with the DEO, as stipulated under Rule
87, any person is entitled on payment of nominal fee of Rs.1 to
inspect such account and on payment of such other fee
prescribed orfixed bythe.Election_Commissiqn, is also entitled E
to obtain attested copies of such accounts or of any .P<i!it
thereof. The learned counsel, therefore, contended that the yery ..
right given to a citizen or a voter to seek for inspection of the
account of election expenses submitted by a candidate ar)d
also get attested copies of such account, would show that the F
said person who seeks for such inspection and gets a copy
will have every consequential right to move the appropriate
· autho.rities to point out· any illegality committed in the
submission of the account of election expenses.
69. When we consider the above submission, we find . G
force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the
Respondents. ·Reading Section 1QA along with Rules 81 to
9Q, in particular, the right conferred on any person to seek for
inspection of the accounts submitted, it will have to be held
H
1322 ·SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A that such a right is not conferred merely to look into the details
of the account If based on the inspection, made by a person
under Rule 88 and the attested copies of such accounts
disclose that the candidate concerned committed a very
serious illegality in the matter of submission of the account of
B election expenses, it must be stated that such a person will
have every right to bring it to the notice of the Election
Commission for taking appropriate legal recourse available
to that person under the Act. It may be stated that once any
such misfeasance in the submission of the account of the
c election expenses is brought to the notice of the Election
Commission, thereafter it would be for the Election
Commission to set the process in motion for deciding the issue
as contemplated in Section 1OA of the Act. It cannot be said
that no person can by way of a complaint approach the Election
D Commission.
70. The conduct of election being in the realm of public
domain, the operation of such election would take place in
each constituency, in an area spread over the whole of the
constituency. It will have to be stated that the Election
.E Commission may not be in a position to have access to any
kind of illegality or irregularity indulged in by the candidates
concerned, irrespective of the various personnel such as
·Election officerS, security personnel, etc. functioning exclusively
for the purpose of holding the election under the control of the
F Election Commission. Therefore, such instances of illegalities.
committed by the candidates contesting in the election in
certain areas of the constituency may come to the notice of
some individuals, which may have a serious ramification
relating to the conductof the candidate by abusing the process
G of the election with the aid.of money power available with such
candidate. Therefore, if someone is able to assert such misuse
. of funds in the process of election by a candidate by making
ari inspection under Rule 88 and if the concerned individual
· fil")dS out that such misuse of funds had taken place; which
l:l
ASHOK SHANKARRAO CHAVAN v. DR. MADHAVRAO 1323
KINHALKAR [FAKKiR MOHAMED IBRAHlM KALIFULLA, J.]

was not disclosed in the statement of account of election· A
expenses, he will have every right to bring it to the notice of the
Election Commission and the very purport.of providing such a
right under Rule 87 and 88 when read along with Section 1OA
makes it dear that he would have every locus to prefer a
complaint. Also in the course of an enquiry made under Section B
1OA;·the Election Commission can call upon the concerned
individual to substantiate the complaint with relevant materials
to enable the Election Commission to pass appropriate orders
of disqualification under the said Section. Therefore, the
contention of learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant that the c
Complainants have no locus cannot be accepted.
71. lnfact, apart from the complaints of the individuals,
in the case of the Appellant in the appeal (@SLP(C) No.29882
of 2011) and in the case of the Appellants in the other appeals,
such illegality in the matter of accounts of the election expenses D
was brought to the notice of the Election Commission by the
Press Council of India in one case and by the Board of Direct
Taxes in the other. Even if some motive can be attributed to
. the.complaints made by the individuals, we see no reason why
bodies like the Press Council of India and the statutory body, E
namely, Board of Direct Taxes should have any malice or
motive against the candidates concerned, name'ly, the
Appellants while bringing the illegalities committed by the
Appellants to the notice of the Election Commission. Therefore,
the contention based on locus of the Complainants has F
absolutely no substance and the same stands rejected.
· 72. Having dealt with the submission made on behalf of
the Appellant, we also wish to find out whether the reliance
placed upon various decisjons by the learned Senior Counsel
for the Appellant support the stand of the Appellant. Mr. Gopal G
·· Subramanium, learned Senior Counsel relied upon N.P.
n ,;Ponnuswami (supra), a Constitution-Bench decision of six
:. Judges. In the said case, the point raised based on Article·
329(b) was noted as under in Paragraph 5:
H
1324 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

·A "5. It was conceded at the Bar that 1he effect of this
difference in language is what (that) whereas any law
made by Parliament under Article 327, or by the State
Legislatures under Article 328, cannot exclude the
jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the
B Constitution, that jurisdiction is excluded in regard to
matters provided for in Article 3·29."
73. That was a case where the nomination of a candidate
rejected by the returning officer could be challenged only by of
an Election Petition under Section 329(b) and if that be so,
C whether any other proceedings could be resorted to including
a proceeding under Article 226 of the ,Constitution challenging
the rejection of the nomination. Dealing with that situation, this
. Court held that the word 'election' can be and has been
. appropriately used with reference to the entire process, which
· D consists of several _stages and embraces many steps some
of which may have important bearing on the result of the
process. Therefore, it was held that if the grounds on which an
e.lection can be called in question, could be raised at an earlier
' stage and the errors, if any, are rectified there will be no
E meaning in enacting a provision like Article 329(b) and in
a
. setting up Special Tribunal. It was.further held that any other
meaning ascribed to the words used in the Article would lead
to anomalies which the Constitution could not have ·
• contemplated, one of them being that conflicting views may
F be expressed by the High Court at the pre-polling stage and
. by the Election Tribunal, which is to be an independent body
. at the stage when the matter is brought up before it. In the light
· of the situation in which the overall jurisdiction of the Election
Tribunal (High Court) relating to a challenge that can be made
G to an election can be made as provided under Article 329(b ),
this Court having held that the word 'election' would include
.very many process till the completion of the. polling anp the
·declaration ot the result and, therefore, there cannot be a
piecemeal challenge permitted to be made by way of a Writ
H
ASHOK SHANKARRAO CHAVAN v. DR. MADHAVRAO 1325
KINHALKAR [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

Petition under Article 226. The said proposition of law, as A
declarecj by this Court, can never be controverted. In the case
on hand, there was no attempt made by anyone to challenge
the election of the Appellant by resorting to a complaint which
has emanated in the form of proceeding under Section 1OA
by the Election Commission. In fact, in a proceeding under ·s
Section 1OA, there is no scope or power vested with Election
Commission to declare the election as invalid. Therefore, there
is no question of any violation of Article 329(b) that would arise
in the case on hand. We, therefore, do.not find any support
from the said decision for the Appellant. C
74. The Appellant then relied upon the decision repol}ed
in Surinder Singh Banolta (supra). In the said decision,
reliance was placed upon Paragraph 18, wherein it was stated
as under:
D
"18. If a candidate or a voter had the knowledge that the
elected candidate was disqualified. in terms of Section
122 of the Act, he may file an application. The order of
eviction may come to the notice of some other person
after the election process is over. A situation, thus, may E
arise where two different proceedings may lie before two
different authorities at the instance of two different
persons. Two parallel proceedings, it is well settled;
cannot be allowed to continue at the same time. A
construction of a statute which may lead to such a
situation, therefore, must be avoided. It will also lead to F
an absurdity if two different tribunal_s are allowed to come
to contradictory decisions."
75. To understand the prjnciple stated in the said
paragraph, it will have to be noted that under the Himachal · G
Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, Section 122 provided for
various circumstances which would disqualify a person from
being Member of a Panchayat or from being chosen as a
Member of Panchayat. After setting out this various situations
H
1326 SUPREME COURT REPORTS' . .[2014] 14 ~u;.R.

A under which such a disqualification will occur, as far as the
remedy is concerned, it ~as noted that the same is pfoyided
in Sections 163, 174 and· 175 of the Act by which if anyone.
wanted to contend that a particular person is disqualified from
being a member or to be chosen as a Member of Panchayat,
B the only remedy is by way of an Election Petition and not
otherwise. In the said case, one ofttle contestantswas held to
be disqualified based on another p'roceeding where he was
found to have encroached public lands and was directed to
be ejected from the land in question, which was one of the
C . circumstances under which he came to be disqualified as
prescribed under Section 122(1) of the Act. The person who
alleged such disqualification as against the contestant, moved
the Deputy Commissioner, who took cognizance of the said
complaint and by an order dated 04.06.2002, declared the
D contestant as disqualified from being chosen as a Member of
the Zila Parishad and consequently, his election was seraside.
On finding that suc::h a power was not invested with a Deputy
Commissioner under the said Act and that the only remedy
available to the Complainant was by way of an Election Petition
E as provided under Section 163 read with Sections 174 and
175 of the Act, this Court held that such parallel proceedings
cannot be permitted. We do not find any scope to apply the
said decision to the case on hand. We have elaborately noted
the scheme of the Act by which the scope of the Election
F Petition as contained ir.i Sections 79 to 11.6 was noted, as
against the power and jurisdiction of the Election Commission
to pass an order of disqualification under Section 1OA, which
does not deal with .the validity of the election but is only
concerned with the failure to lodge a statement of election
G expenses in the manner as required by or under the Act, for
the purpose of passing an order of disqualification.
. . 76. In the light of such statutory 'prescription contained in
the Act clearly distinguishing the different role to be played by
an Election Tribunal (High Court) and the Election Commission
H
ASHOK SHANKARRAO CHAVAN v. DR. MADHAVRAO 1327
KINHALKAR [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

as compared to the provisions contained in the Himachal A
Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, the said decision also does
not support the stand of the Appellant..
77. Reliance was also placed upon Dalchand Jain
(supra) to contend that suppression of certain expenses
incurred in the election while submitting the return as stipulated B
under Section 77 would amount to a corrupt practice as
specified in Section 123(6) and consequently, in that case on
finding that such non-disclosure of expenditure amounted to
corrupt practice, the election was set aside by an Election
Tribunal (High Court). When the said order of the Election C
Tribunal (High Court) was challenged before this Court, after
examining the factual matrix in detail, this Court upheld the
order of the Election Tribunal (High Court) holding that the same
did not call for any interference. It will have to be stated that the
said decision can have no application to the case on hand, D
inasmuch as, the question whether the jurisdiction of the·
Election Commission under Section 1OA would stand excluded
by virtue of the dismissal of an Election Petition by the Election
Tribunal (High Court) at the instance of one of the Complainants
in the case oftheAppellarit in the appeal(@ SLP(C) No.29882 E
. of 2011) was not the point in issue. There was also no issue
raised as to whether as a general proposition of law, jurisdiction
under Section 10A of the Act for passing an order of
disqualification for failure to lodge the account in the manner
and as required by or under the Act can only be raised as a F
ground of attack for setting aside an election before the
Election Tribunal (High Court). Therefore, we do not find any
scope to apply the said decision to the facts of this case.
78. Reliance was then placed upon a Constitution Bench
decision of this Court reported in Brundaban Nayak (supra). G
In the said judgment, which was prior to the introduction of
Section 10Aand the corresponding Rules, relating to the said
section. In Paragraph 19, after noting the observations made
by the Chief Election Officer, while rendering its opinion at the
H
•
1328 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ; [2014] 14 s.c.:R.

A request of ttie Governor as provided under Article 192 of the
Constitution, wfien relevant facts are in dispute it can be
ascertained only after a proper enquiry, this Court observed
as under in paragraph 19: 'l

"19 ..... .. We would like to invite the attention of parliament
B to these observations, because we think that the difficulty
experienced by Election Commission in rendering its
opinion under Article 103 (2) of Article 192 (2) appears
·to be genuine and so parliament may well consider
whether the suggestion made ·bY the Chief Election
c Commissioner should not be accepted and appropriate
legislation adopted in that behalf'.
79. In fact, Section 146 of the Act, which came to be
introduced with effect from 22.09. fg55 apparently was in
0 compliance with the above observations made by this Court
under which provision, the Election Commission has now been
invested with all the powers.Apart from the above observations,
it will be worthwhile to note the conclusion arrived at by ttiis
Court in Brundaban Nayak (supra) in paragraph 18, which
E reads as under:
"18. In this connection, we ought to point out that so far
the practice followed in respect of such complaints has
consistently recognised that the enquiry is to be held by
the Election Commission both under Article 192(2) and
F Article 103(2). In fact, the learned Attorney;-General for
Respondent 1 stated before us that though on several
occasions, the Election C0mmission has held enquiries
before communicating its opihion either to the President
under Artide 103(2.) or to the Governor under Article
G .
, . 192(2), no one ever thought of raising the contention that ·
f . ,, • . -

the enquiry must be held by the Preside.nt or the Governor
respectively under Article 103(1) and Article 192(1 ). He
suggested thatthe main object of the appellant in taking
such a plea was to prolong the proceedings oefore
H
ASHOK SHANKARRAO CHAVAN v. DR. MADHAVRAO 1329.
KINHALKAR [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

Respondent 1. In the first instance, the appellant asked A
for a long adjournment and when that request was refused
by Respondent 1, he adopted the present proceedings
solely with the object of avoiding an early decision by the
Governor on the complaint made against the appellant
by Respondent 2. We cannot say th.at there is no B
substance in this suggestion."
· 80. A reading of the above paragraph also shows that
even in the absence of Section 146, this Court has recognized
the power of the Election Commission to hold an enquiry
whenever a complaint of disqualification is raised as against C
a member.Therefore, the said decision fully supports the stand
of the Election Commission, rather than the case of the
Appellant.
81. The reliance placed upon the decision of this Court D
in Jagan Nath (supra) is totally misconceived, inasmuch as,
the said judgment came to be rendered when there was a
specific provision in sub-section (1) and (2) of Sections 100
and 101 by which an election of a successful candidate can
be called in question by way of an Election Petition before the
Election Commission itseif. Inasmuch as the. said power E
vested with the Election Commission is no longer available
under the said provisions, which has now been entrusted with
the Election Tribunal (High Court) alone, the reliance placed
upon the said decision is of no use to the Appellant. ·
F
82. The learned Senior Counsel also placed reliance
upon the decision reported in Kanwar Singh Saini (supra).
Reference was made to paragraphs 22 and 23, which are as
under:
"22. There can be no dispute regarding the settled legal G
proposition that conferment of jurisdiction is a legislative
function and it can neither be conferred with the consent
of the parties nor by a superior court, and if the court
passes order/decree having no jurisdiction over the
H
1330 ; . ·SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C,R .•

A·• matter, it would amountto a nullity as the matter goes to
the roots of the cause. Such an issue can be raised at
any belated stage of the proceedings including in appeal
or execution. The finding of a court or tribunal becomes
irrelevant and unenforceable/inexecutable once the forum
B · is found to .have no jurisdiction. Acquiescence of a party
equally should not be permitted to defeat the legislative
animation. The court cannot derive jurisdiction apart from
the statute.
23. When a statute gives a right and provides a forum
c for adjudication of rights, remedy has to be sought only
under the provisions of that Act. When an Act creates a
right or obligation and enforces the performance thereof
in a specified manner, 'that performance cannot be·
enforced in any other manner'. Thus for enforcement of
D a righU obligation under a statute, the only remedy
available to the person aggrieved is to.get adjudication
of rights under the said Act."
83. No one can quarrel with the proposition as laid down
E :in the above paragraphs. The question is whether under
Section 1OA and the other alleged provisions under the Act,
as well as, the Rules, such a power has been invested with the
Election Commission. We have elaborately referred to the
various provisions in the Act, as well as the Rules in particular
F Section 10A, Section 77(1) and (3), Section 78 read along
with Rules 86 to 90 and have held that such a power to hold an
enquiry before passing an order of disqualification under
Section 1OA has been invested with the Election Commission .
•
Therefore, even applying the above said principles, we do not
G find any scope to take a different view.
84. We do not find any support from the decision relied
upon by the learned Senior Counsel on Andhra Provincial
Potteries Ltd. & Ors. (supra). Reliance was placed upon
the principle stated in paragraph 7, wherein it was held that in
H
ASHOK SHANKARRAO CHAVAN v. DR. MADHAVRAO 1331
KINHALKAR [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.)

interpreting a penal provision, it is not permissible to give an. A
extended meaning to the plain words of the Section. Inasmuch
as the said principle has been stated while interpreting a penal
provision, it will have to be stated that the said principle cannot
be applied while interpreting Section 1OA. In any event we have
found that in Rule 89 sub-rule (5), it has been specifically B
provided that the Election Commission should issue a show
cause notice for the purpose of passing any order of
disqualification under Section 1OA calling upon the candidate
concerned to submit its representation in writing. Under sub-
rule (6) of Rule 89 it has been further clarified that a contesting C
candidate who has been called upon to show cause under
sub-rule (5) may within 20 days of the receipt of such notice,
submit a representation in writing to the Election Commission
simultaneously forwarding a copy to the DEO together with a
complete account of his election expenses if he had not already D
furnished such an account. Therefore, reading sub-rule (5) and
(6) of Rule 89 along with Section 1OA, the position is explicitly
clear that the Election Commission, while invoking its power
under Section 1OA has to necessarily issue a show cause
notice calling upon the contesting candidate to submit his reply E
and after the receipt of the reply to the said show cause notice,
consider whether the statement of account was lodged in the
manner and as required by or under the Act and only thereafter,
pass an order of either disqualification br otherwise. Therefore,
the said decision also does not come for the rescue of the F
Appellant.
85. The decision reported in Tukaram 5. Dighole
(supra) was relied upon to highlight that a charge of co'rrupt
practice envisaged by the Act is equated with the criminal
charge and, therefore, the standard of proof would not be the G
preponderance of probabilities, as in a civil action, but proof
•
beyond reasonable doubt as in a criminal trial. Paragraph 1O
of the said decision was relied upon for the above proposition,
which reads as under:
H
1332. SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A "10. Mr K.V. Viswanathan, learned Senior Counsel,
appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand,
supported the decision of the Tribunal and submitted that
apart from the fact that there was no specific pleading in
the eleetion petition with regard to the mode of acquisition
B of the cassette in question, even if it was assumed that
the said cassette was a public document yet in order to
attract the provisions of Section 123 of the Act, the
appellant was required to prove with cogent evidence
that the speeches recorded therein were, in fact, made ·
c by the respondent and his agents. In. support of the
proposition that unless a document is exhibited at the .
•. trial and is put in evidence it cannot be looked into,
reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in Amar
Nath Agarwalfa v. Dhillon Transport Agency. Learned
D counsel asserted that the finding recorded by the Tribunal
on the issue, being a pure finding offact, no interference
is called for."
86. In the first place, the enquiry to be held under Section
1OA is not to examine any allegation of corrupt practice falling
E under Section 123 of.the Act The only area of examination to
be made in an enquiry.under Section 1OA is with regard to the
lodging olthe account of election expenses and whether such
lodgment was done in the manner and as required by or unde·r
the Act. In the second place, when such an enquiry is held, the
F scope would be as confained in Section 77(1) and (3) as well
as Section 78. The said provisions require a contesting
candidate to maintain i;i true and correct account of the election
expen·ses to ensure that such expenses are within the limits
prescribed under the Act and that a copy of such statement of
G accounts is filed within the time prescribed under Section 78.
When it comes to the question of a corrupt practice under
Section 123, it is needless to state that the scope of
examination of the said issue would be within the four corners
of an Election Petition, as has been prescribed in Chapter I of
H
ASHOK SHANKARRAO CHAVAN v. DR. MADHAVRAO 1333
KINHALKAR [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

Part VI of the Act to Chapter V of the Act. At the risk of repetition ., A
it will have to be reiterated that the enquiry under Section 1QA
would be more or less of a civil nature and therefore, the.
principles of preponderance of probabilities alone would apply
and it is relevant to note that even after the order of
disqualification, if any, is passed under Section 1QA, after B
following the requirement of issuance of show cause notice,
receipt of reply, etc., there is a further·remedy available to the
contesting candidate under Section 11 by which the aggrieved
candidate can demonstrate before the Election Commission
as to how the order of disqualification cannot stand and that it c
has to be varied. Even if by invoking Section 11 the aggrieved
candidate is not able to get his grievance redressed, the
Constitutional remedy under Articles 32 and 226 of the ·
Constitution is always available to question the correctness of
any order that may be passed by the Eiection Commission· o
under Sections 1QA and 11 of the Act.
87. Reliance was placed upon the recent decision of this
Court reported in Secretary, A:P.D. Jain Pathshafa & Ors.
(supra) for the proposition that ad hoc authorities cannot be
permitted to exercise judicial functions and that the executive· E
power of the State cannot be extended to creating Judicial
Tribunals or Authorities exercising juridical powers and
rendering judicial decisions. The said decision came to be
rendered while examining the scope of binding nature of a
decision rendered by a three member Grievance Redressal F
Committee constituted under a scheme called Shikshan Sevak
Scheme in all recognized private secondary/higher secondary
school/ junior colleges/B.Ed. colleges in the State of
Maharashtra. Such a scheme was not under any statute or
was not governed by any statutory provision. In examining the • G
scope of authority of such a committee· called Grievance
Redrassal Committee formed under a scheme in the purported
exercise of executive authority, this Court held that constitution
·of a Grievance Committee, as a public adjudicatory_ forum
H
1334 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2Q14] 14 S.C.R.

A whose decisions are supposedly binding on the parties to the
dispute pursuant to executive order of the Government, was
impermissible. We do not find any scope to apply the said
decision, inasmuch as, there is a world of difference as
between the Constitution of a Grievance Redressal Committee
B under a Scheme with no statutory support and the existence
of a Constitutional Authority, viz the Election Commission,
created under the Constitution of India, which has been
invested with the powers of superintendence, control and
· issuance of directions for the purpose of holding public
C elections in this country, apart from the entr.ustment of specific
powers under the Act, inter a/fa, under Section 1QA and 11
and such powers are to be exercised in accordance with the.
Rules, viz the Conduct of the Election Rules. The said decision
also, therefore, does not help the Appellant. .
• I
D 88. We find that the reliance placed upon the decision
reported in Election Commission ~f India Through
Secretary (supra) is not applicable to the case on hand,
inasmuch as, in the said decision, the question posed for
consideration was as to what exterit Article 329(b) had
E overriding effect on Article 226 of the Constitution. This Court
as a proposition of law stated that if the petition presented to
the Court calls in question an election, the bar of Article 329(b)
is attracted, else it is not. We do no find any reference to any
of the issues which arise for consideration _in the case on hand
F in the said judgment. Therefore, the said decision also does
not support the case of the Appellant.
89. Reliance was placed upon the decision reported in
. Bharat Aluminium Company(supra) paragraphs 165, 166
and 168 for the propositioo that the legislation cannot be
G .construed contrary to Parliament'.s intention.just to avoid any
hardship. In support of his contention; he submitted that the.
complainants before the Election Commission have no locus
standi to raise the issue under Section 1QA. We have found .
that the power in Election Commission under Section 1QA is
H
ASHOK SHANKARRAO CHAVAN v. DR. MADHAVRAO 1335
KINHALKAR [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

inherent. We have also held by making reference to' Sections A
77 (1 ), (2) & (3) and 78, read along with Rules 86 to 90 that
there is every right in any member of the electorate who is
entitled to seek for inspection of the account submitted by a
candidate and also _get the authenticated copy_ of such
statement. He is also entitled to b_ring to the notice of the B
Election Commissiqn any serious flaw in the account of election
expenses submitted by a contesting candidate.
90. Our conclusion is, therefore, based on an
interpretation of the statutory provisions in the Act, as well as
the Rules. Therefore, the reliance placed upon the decisions C
reported in Bharat Alumihium Company (supra) and M.
Karunanidhi (supra) does not support the case of the
Appellant.
91. The decision reported in Sfddharam Satlingappa 0
Mhetre (supra) was relied upon for the proposition that a
decision delivered by a larger Bench is binding on any
subsequent Bench of lesser or co-equal strength. The
submission was that the decision rendered in Sucheta
Kripalani (supra) is a Constitution Bench decision, while the E
one rendered in LR. Shivaramagowda (supra) is by three
Judge Bench and th.at since the Constitution Bench decision
covered the issue, the same should have been followed and,
therefore, the law laid down in L.R. Shivaramagowda (supra)
need not be followed. ·
F
92. Having considered the said submission of the learned
Senior Counsel Mr. Gopal Subramanium in the earlier part of·
the judgment while examining the then existing Section 7(c)
and 8(b) and insertion of Section 10A replacing the earlier
Section 7(c) and 8(b), we have held thatthe ratio laid down in G
Sucheta Kripalarii based on Section 7(c) and 8(b), cannot
be applied and that decision in LR. Shivaramagowda
(supra), which came to be rendered after the insertion of
Section 1OA alone would apply. We have examined in detail
H
. 1.336 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A · as to how the jriserti<;m of Section 1OA in the place of Section
?(c) and 8(b) has wipened the powers and i;;cope o~the Election
Commission for passing an order of disqualification which was
squarely considered by this court in LR. Shivaramagowda
(s1.1pra). In the light of the said position, the reliance placed
B upon Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre (supra) is also-of no
assistance to the Appellant.
93. Mr. L. Nageshwar Rao, learned Additional Solicitor
General relied upon,Bharat Aluminum Co. (supra), a
Constitution Bench decision of this Court. Our attention was
C drawn to paragraph 65 Where the decision of the House of
Lords has .been quoted reported in Du port Steels Ltd. v. Sirs-
( 1980) 1WLR142. The specific reference was made to the
expression:
"Where the meaning of the statutory words is plain and
D.
unambiguous it is not for the Judges to invent fancied
ambiguities as an excuse for failing to give effect to its
plain m~aning because they themselves consider that
the consequences of doing so would be inexpedient or
even unjust or immoral."
E
94. We must state that there is no scope for applying the
, said principle to the case on hand, inasmuch as, while
interpreting Section 1OA, we have only attempted to highlight
what the said provision literally means. We have- neither
. F attempted to make an interpretation which thereby widens the
scope of the provision. We have only analyzed the said
provision forthe working of which Rules have also been framed
. and by reading Section 1OA along with the said Rules, .and we
wish to point out that the many expressions and ingredients
.G set out in the Section itself, read along with Rules disclose
what is the nature and extent of powedhat has been invested
with the Election Commission. Since this Court has not
attempted to enlarge the scope of Sedion 1OA and the· allied
Rules, we do not find any scope to apply the above referred to
H statement quoted in paragraph 65 of the said judgment.
ASHOK SHANKARRAO CHAVAN v. DR. MADHAVRAO 1337
KINHALKAR [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

95. The learned Additional Solicitor General also placed .A
reliance upon a three Judge Bench decision of this Court
reported in Sales Tax Officer v. K.I. Abraham (supra).
Reliance was placed upon page 522, while interpreting the
phrase 'in the prescribed manner' in Section 8(4), read with
Section 13 of the Central Sales Tax Act, wherein it was held B
asunder:
" ...........The decision of the question at issue therefore
depends on the construction of the phrase 'in the
prescribed manner' ins. 8(4) read with s.13 of the Act.
In our opinion, the phrase 'in the prescribed manner' C
occurring ins. 8(4) of the Act only confers power on the
rule-making authority to prescribe a rule stating what
particulars are to be mentioned in the prescribed form,
the nature and value of the goods sold, the parties· to
whom they are sold, and to which authority the form is to D
be furnished. But the phrase 'in the prescribed manner'
ins. 8(4) does not take in tl:ie time-element. In other
words, the section does not authorize the rule-making
authority to prescribe a time-limit within which the
declaration is to be filed by the registered , E
dealer ............................. This makes it clear thatthe
Legislature was conscious of the fact that the expression .
'in the manner' would denote only the mode in which an.
act was to be done, and if any time-limit was to be
prescribed for the doing of the act, specific words such · F
as 'the time within which' were also necessary to be put
in the statute. In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary it is said
that the words 'manner and form' refer' only 'to the mode
in which the thing is to be done, and do not introduce
anything from the Act referred to as to the thing which is G
to be done or the time for doing it.. ............"
96. We do not find any scope to apply the said decision
to the case on hand. What was highlighted in the said decision
was that though the phrase mentioned 'in the prescribed, H
1.338' SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1 [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A manner' in Section 8 (4), yet significantly there was no
prescription of any time limit. The authority on ,its own
_prescribed the time limit, and therefore, it.was held that when
such a prescription was not found in the Act, it was not within
the authority of the concerned assessing authority to prescribe
B any time limit. In fact, there was no challenge to the authority
exercised by the concerned officer. What was held was that
while exercising the authority, there was exercise of jurisdiction
by prescribing a time limit which was not provided for in the
statute; We are dealing with a case where the power prescribed
c under Section 10A of the Act provides that the Election
Commission on finding that the lodgment of the account of
election expenses was not in the manner prescribed and as
required under the Act can pass an order of disqualification.
The question is when Section 77(1) and (3) of the Act read
o . with section 78, which prescribe a time limit withir;i which the
lodgment of account should be made by a contesting candidate
c:;onsidering the rules prescribed in Section 89, whether the
Electiqn Commission is invested with the powers to examine
the statement of account lodged by a contesting candidate
, E ·and find out whether such lodgment of the account was within
the time prescribed and that it reflected a true, correct an.d
bona fide accounts. Therefore, when such prescriptions are
contained ih the,Actand the Election Commission has to only
. , . find out whether such prescriptions in the other provisions of
··F - ttJeAct have been duly complied with or not, we fail to see any
_ ground to apply the ratio of the abqve decision to the case on
hand. Therefore, the said decision also does not support the
stand of !he Ur:iion of India. ·
.
97. When we consider the submission of Mr. Jayant
G. Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel -pointing out the
distinguishing feature in the case of Sucheta Kripalani
(supra), which came to be rendered when Sectidn 7 (c) was
as it.originally stood was to be applied along with Section 143
oft_heAct, this Court in paragraph 11 ~tressed the point that
H
ASHOK SHANKARRAO CHAVAN v. DR. MADHAVRAO 1339
KINHALKAR [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

under Section 143, which specifically prescribes that a return • A
is found to be in accordance with Section 77 of the Act, the
jurisdiction was vested with the Election Tribunal (High Court)
in an election petition to find out whether the return contained
falsity in material particulars. The learned Senior Counsel,
tlierefore:submitted that what was held in paragraph 30 that B
in the light of the said Section 143, which was prevailing then,
this Court when examining the jurisdiction of the Election
Commission to pass an order of disqualification, stated in
paragraph 30 that it is a question of form and not of substance.
The learned Senior Counsel also pointed out that since now C
section 143 itself has been removed from the Act and the.
scope of power. of Election Commission has been
incorporated in Section 10A as againstthe then Section 7(c)
and B(b ), the decision in Sucheta Kripalani (supra) can have
no application to the case on hand. Areading of the decision . D
in Sucheta Kripalani (supra), particularly paragraphs 11 and
12 really support the· above stand of the learned Senior
Counsel. Paragraphs 11 and 12 are as Under:
"11. Section 76 of the Ac,t requires every candidate to
file. a return of election expenses in a particular form· E
containing certain prescribed particulars. The form and
particulars are set out in the Rules. Sectiqn 143
prescribes the penalty for failure to observe thcise _
req!,Jirements·. It is disqualification. This ensues if there
is a 'default' in making the return. It also ensues: .F
a
'if such return is found ....upon the frial of an election. ..
petition under Part VI ... to be false in any material
particular'.
· 12. That places the matter beyond doubt. The trial of an G .
election petition is conducted by an Election Tribunal and
this section makes it incumbent on the Tribunal to enquire
a
into the falsity of a return when that is matter raised
arid placed in issue and the allegations are reasonably
H
1340 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 14 S.C.R.

.
A connected with other allegations about a major corrupt
practice, The jurisdiction is that of the Tribunal ahd not of
. the Election Commission. The duty of the Election
·Commission is merely to decide under Rule 114(4)
whether any candidate has, among other things,
. I •
B 'failed to lodge the return of election expenses ... in the·
manner required by the Act and these rules'."
98. Inasmuch as Section 143 has now been removed
from the statute book, while at the same time the prescription
c : in Section 1OA which has now reiplaced the earlier Sections
7(c) and 8(b) of the 1950 Act, has prescribed clear and
unambiguous power in the Election Commission to find out
whether the lodgment of accotmt of election expenses was in
·the manner and as required by or under the Act, as was pointed
by us earlier, the decision in Sucheta Kripalani (supra) cari
0
have no application to the case on hand and that the
subsequent decision in LR. Shivaramagowda (supra)
would alone apply.
99. Ms. Pinki Anand, learned Senior Counsel placed
· E .reliance upon the decision of this Court reported in State of
Gujarat &Anr. v. Justice R.A. Mehta (Retd.) & Ors. - 2013
(3) SCC 1, to which one of·us was the party (F.M. Ibrahim .
· Kalifulla, J.). Paragraph 96 of the said judgment is to the
following effect: ·
,.
F "96. In the process of statutory construction, the court must ,
.. construe the Act before it bearing iri mind the legal maxim
ut res.magis valeat quam pereatwhich means it is better
for a thing to have effect than for it to be m_ade void i.e. a
statute must be construed in such a manner so as to
make it workable. Viscount Simon, L.C. in Nokes v.
Doncaster Amalgamated Collieries Ltd. stated as
follows: (AC p. 1022)
' . .-.if .the choice is between tWo. interpretations, the
narrower of which would fail to achieve the manifest
ASHOK SHANKARRAO CHAVAN v. DR. MADHAVRAO 1341
KINHALKAR [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

purpose of the legislation, we should avoid a construction A
which would reduce the legislation to futility and should
rather accept the bolder construction based on the view
that Parliament would legislate only for the purpose of
bringing about an effective result'."
100. Applying the above well known principle to the facts B
of this case, we are not persuaded to accept the submission
of Mr. Gopal Subramaniur'n, learned Senior Counsel. If the
submissions were to be accepted and it will have to be held
that Election Commission will have no jurisdiction to make an
enquiry for the purpose of ascertaining the fulfillment of the C
requirement as contained in Settion 1 OA then the very
provision, namely, Section 1OAwill have to be rendered otiose.
We are, therefore, not able to accede to the said submission.
On the other hand, if Section 1OA has to operate, the conclusion
of ours that the Election Commission has the required D
jurisdiction to make the enquiry into the complaint alleged as
against the Appellant is well justified.
101.To the same effect is the decision reported in Afjal
Imam v. State of Bihar & Ors.- 2011 (5) SCC 729 which was E
also relied upon by Ms. Pinki Anand, learned Senior Counsel.
102. We can also usefully refertothe·decision referred
to before.us by Mr. Ashok Desai, learned Senior Counsel for
the Election Commission Union of India v.Association for.
Democratic Reforms & Anr. • 2002 (5) SCC 294, wherein F
this Court has highlighted the dire need for maintaining purity
in the elections and for that purpose Article 324 to be
interpreted in a broad perspective, acknowledging the wide
powers invested with the Election Commission. Paragraph
17 of the said decision which is relevant for our purpose is as G
under:
"17. Ms Kamini Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondents in support of the decision
rendered by the High Court referred to the decision in
H
1342 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A Kihoto Ho//ohan v. Zachi//hu wherein while considering
the validity of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, the
Court observed: (SCC p. 741, para 179)
'179. Democracy is a part of the basic structure of our
Constitution; and rule of law, and free and fair elections
B are basic features of democracy. One of the postulates
of free and fair elections is provision for resolution of
election disputes as also adjudication of disputes
. relating to ·subsequent disqualifications by an
independent authority.'
c She, therefore, contended that for free and fair elections ·
·and for survival of democracy, entire history, background
and the antecedents of the candidate are required to be
disclosed to the voters so that they can judiciously decide
in whose favour they should vote; otherwise, there would
D
not be true reflection of electoral mandate. For
interpreting Article 324, she submitted that this provision
outlines broad and general principles .giving power to
. the Election Commission and it should be interpreted in .
a broad perspective as. held by this Court in various _
E
decisions."
103. In the light of the above categoric statement made
while holding that the rule of law and free and fair elections are
the basic features and facts of our democracy, Article 324
F should be interpreted in a wide perspective giving power to
the Election Commission which has to be r_ecognized in a broad
. - j J .

sense· and not in a narrow one. We fully approve of-the
submissions of Mr. Ashok Desai, learned Senior Counsel on
the abo_ve lines and we have already held that in order to ensure
G free arid fair elections, the power vested with the Election
Commission under Section 10A read along with-the other .
provisions of the Act and the Rules, it sbould be held that
Election. Commission does poss~ss the requisite powers
under Section 1OA to hold the necessary enquiry to ascertain
H
ASHOK SHANKARRAO CHAVAN v. DR. MADHAVRAO 1343
KINH,l\LKAR [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

the fact about the compliance of the statutory requirements in A
the matter of submission of accounts of the eleetion expenses,
. i.e. the true, correct and bona fide expenses and that such
. expenses were within the prescribed limit of the Act.
104. we· also wish to refer to the decision of this Court
reported in People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) & B
Anr. v. Union of lndiaJl<Anr. - 2003 (4) SCC 399 which was
brought to our notice by Mr. Ashok Desai, learned Senior
Counsel. In paragraph 20 of the said decision, this Court has
practically acknowledged the report of the National
Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution C
appointed by the Union Government submitted in March, 2002.
Paragraph 20 (4.14.1) and (4.14.3) can be usefully referred to
stiow how as a matter of fact money power is playing a very
detrimental role in the.matter of elections which requires to be
curbed, which are as under: D
·"20 ......... .4.14.1. One of the most critical problems in
the matter of electoral reforms is the hard reality that for
· contesting an election one needs large amounts of
money. The limits of expenditure prescribed are E
meaningless and almost never adhered to. As a result,
it becomes difficult for the good and the honest to enter
legislatures. It also creates a high degree of compulsion
for corruption in the political arena. This has
progressively polluted the enti.re system. Corruption, F
because it erodes performance, becomes one of the
leading reasons for non-performance and compromised
governance in the country. The sources of some of the
election funds are believed to be unaccounted criminal
money in return for protection, unaccounted funds from
business groups who expect a high return on this G
investment, kickbacks or commissions on contracts etc.
No matter how we.look at it, citizens are directly affected ·
because apart from compromised governance, the huge
money spent on elections pushes up the cost of everything
H
1344 SUPREME COURT REPORTS :(2014] 14 S.C.R.
i .

A in the country. It also leads to unbridled corruption and
the consequences of widespread corruption are even
more serious than many imagine. Eleetoral compulsions
for funds become the foundation of the whole
superstructure of corruption.
B 4.14.3.' Transparency in the context of election means
both the sources of finance as well as their utilization as
are listed out in an audited statement. If the candidates
are required to list the sources of their income, this can

c
be checked back .
by the .
. Income Tax Authorities. The
Commission recommends that the political parties as
well as individual candidates be made subject to a
proper statutory audit of the amounts they spend. These
accounts should be monitored through a system of
. checking and cross-checking through the income tax .
D returns filed by the candidates, parties and their we/1-
wishers. At the end of the election each candidate
should submit an audited statement of expenses under
specific heads. EC should devise specific formats for
filing such statements so that fudging of accounts
E becomes difficult. Also, the audit should not only be
. mandatory but it should be enforced by the _Electioh
Commission." ·
105, We only refer to the said paragraphs as has been
F relied in the above judgment and keep th·e same in mind when
we interpret the power of the Electiori Commission under · ·
. Section 1QA. The same will have to be kept in mind when we
interpret the power of the Election Commission under Section
1OA of the Act.· When we do so we are convinced that the
interpretation placed by us on Section 1OA Would be the proper
G manner of interpretation, in order to ensure that such misuse
of money power in the field of public.eleetions are to be curbed.
106. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned Counsel for the
intervenor by relying upon the decision reported in Dalcll"cmc;t
H Jain (supra) in paragraph 14, pointed out that while Section
ASHOK SHANKARRAO CHAVAN v. DR. MADHAVRAO 1345
KINHALKAR [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

123(6), which relates to corrupt practice, is referable to Section A
77(3), Section 77(1) and (2) relate to the maintenam;e of
correct accounts with the prescribed particulars, contravention
of which, it can be examined only by the Election Commission
under Section 1OA. The said submission is perfectly justified
and the reliance placed upon the above decision in paragraph B
14 also fully supports the stand of the learned counsel. Para
14 reads as under:
"14. Section 123(6) lays down that 'the incurring or
authorising of expenditure in contravention of Section 77'
is a corrupt practice. Every contravention of Section 77 C
does not fall within Section 123(6). Section 7Tconsists
of three parts. Section 77, sub-section (1) requires the
candidate to keep a separate and correct account of all
election expenses incurred or authorised by him within
certain dates. Section 77, sub-section (2) provides that D
the account shall contain such particulars as may be .
prescribed. Section 77, sub-section (3) requires that the
total of the said expenditure shall not exceed the
prescribed amount. Section 123(6) is related to Section
73(3).·lf the candidate incurs or authorises expenditure E
· in excess of the prescribed.amount in contravention of
. Section 77(3) he commits corrupt practice under Section
123(6). The contravention of Section 77, sub-sections
(1) and (2) or the failure to maintain correct accounts with
the prescribed particulars does not fall within Section F
123(6). See Sri Krishna v. Sat Narain. The same opinion
has been expressed in several decisions of the High
Courts, see Savitri Devi v, Prabhawati Misra; N.L.
Verma v. Muni Lal; Narasimhan v. Natesa and the cases
referred to therein." _G
107. Relying upon the said paragraph, we .are not
hesitant to hold that while Section 123(6) is relatable to Section
77(3), there is no bar to invoke Section 77(1) and (2) whil!l
holding the enquiry under Section 1OA of the Act.
H
1346 SUPREME COURTREPORTS . [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A 108. While holding so, we do not find any support for the
Appellants in relying upon the decision reported in Common
Cause (A Registered Society) (supra). Reliance was placed
upon paragraph 28(5) and (6).
"28 ....... .5. A political party which is not maintaining,
B · audited and authenticated, accounts: and has not filed
the return of income for the relevarit period, cannot,
ordinarily, be permitted to say that it has incurred or
authorized expenditure in connection with the election of
its candidates in terms of Explanation I to Section 77 of
c the RP Act. I
6. That the expenditure, (including that for which the
candidate is seeking protection under Explanation 1 to
·Section 77 of the RP Act) in connection with the election
of a candidate-to the knowledge of the candidate or
D
his election agent-shall be presumed to have been
authorised by the candidate or his election agent. It shall,
however, be open to the candidate to rebut the
presumption in accordance with law and to show that
part of the expenditure ?r whole of it was .in fact incurred
E
by the political party to.which he belongs or by any other
association or body of persons or by an individual (other
than the candidate or his election agerit). Only when the
candidate discharges the burden and rebuts the
presumption he would be entitled to the benefit of
F
Explanation 1 to Section 77 of the RP Act. ....... "
· 109. The submission apparently was that there was every
right in the candidate concerned to demonstrate that the.
candidate did not really incur such expenditure and that he
G .was not to be blamed for any unauthorized expenditure made
by the party concerned. Assuming such a stand of any of the
Appellants is to be believed, it is always open to the Appellant
to demonstrate before the Election Commission, with all the
relevant materials and convince the Election Commission that
H
ASHOK SHANKARRAO CHAVAN v. DR. MADHAVRAO 1347
KINHALKAR [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

on that score, no order of disqualification can be passed. The A
said decision cannot however be relied upon to hold that the
Election Commission has no power or jurisdiction to enquire.
into the complaint, which has now been made against the
appellant.
11 o. At the end we can profitably refer to.the basics of B
our democracy, which have been succinctly stated by His
Lordship Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in the Constitution Bench
decision reported in Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. v. Chief
Election Commission, New Delhi & Ors.· 1978 (1) SCC
405. To borrow His Lordship's expression stated in paragraph C
2, the same are as under:
"2. Every significant case has an unwritten legend and
indelible lesson. This appeal is no exception, whatever
its formal result. The message, as we will see at the end D
of the decision, relates to the pervasive philosophy of
democratic elections which Sir Winston Churchill vivified
in matchless words:
'At the bottom of all tributes paid to demo·cracy is the
little man, walking into a little booth, with a little pencil, E
making a little cross on a little bit of paper- no amount
of rhetoric or voluminous discussion can possibly
diminish the overwhelming importance of the point.'
If we may add, the little, large Indian shall not be hijacked
from the course of free and fair elections by mob muscle · F
methods, or subtle perversion of discretion by men
'dressed in little, brief authority'. For 'be you ever so high,
the law is above you.''
111. In our considered view, if the above basics of G
democracy and purity in elections have to be maintained, it is
appropriate to hold that the decision of the Election
Commission as upheld Qy the High Court to the effect that
Section 1OA clothes the Election Commission with the requisite
power and authority to enquire into the allegations relating to H
1348 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A failure to submit the accounts of election expenses in the ·
mahner prescribed and as required by or under the Act, is
perfectly justified and we do not find any scope to interfere
with the same. Inasmuch as ihe period·of membership is likely
to come to an end, it will be in order for the Election·
B Commission to conclude the proceedings within 45 days and
pass appropriate orders in accordance with iaw. In order to
ensure that within the said period the Election Commission is
not prevented from passing the orders due to non-cooperation
of any of the parties, it will open for the Election Commission
C to hold the proceedings on a day to day basis and conclude
the same within the said period.
112. In so far as the appeal(@ SLP(C) No.21958 of
2013) is concerned, apart from holding that tt.ie Election
Commission has· got every jurisdiction to hold the enquiry under
D Section 10A for the purpose of disqualification, since the
Election Commission has already passed its orders on merits
and disqualified the Appellant for a period of three years, we
also examined the reasoning of the Election Tribunal (High
Court) for passing the said order, as well as the judgment of
E the Division Bench. Since, the order of Election Commission
has now been confirmed by the Division Bench and since th·e
Division Behch has dealt with the said issue on merits
extensively, we wish to refer to the said part of the judgment to
find out whether the grievance of the Appellant on merits
F deserves any consideration. The pivision .Bench has recorded
the plea raised on behalf of the Appellant by stating that
according to the Appellant, the advertisements were published
by Rashtriya Parivartan Dal and the payment of publication
was borne by the party and, therefore; the question to be
G considered was as to whether the expenses incurred by the
party for publishing the advertisement can be held to be .
expenses incurred or authorized by theAppellant. The Division
Bench also took note of the decision of this Court in Common
Cause (A Registered Society) (supra), wherein it was held
H
ASHOK SHANKARRAO CHAVAN v. DR. MADHAVRAO 1349
KINHALKAR [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

that even if expenses are claimed by the party, the presumption A
should be that the said expenses shall be incurred or authorized
by the candidate, which presumption however is rebuttable.
The relevant paragraph of the abovementioned decision on
this proposition has been extracted in the earlier part of the
· judgment. B
.113. After noting the above settled principle, the Division
Bench proceeded to find out whether the said expenses
claimed to have been incurred by the party can be treated to
be expenses incurred or authorized by the Appellant.
c
114. The Division Bench thereafter reached the following
conclusion:
"Section 77 of the Representation of People Act, 1951,
as amended by Act No. 46 of 2003, Explanation- I, clearly
provides that expenditure incurred by the .leaders of D
political party on account of travel by air or by any other
means of transport for propagating programme of the
political party shall not be deemed to be expenditure in
connection with the election incurred or authorised by a
candidate of that political party. Thus now expenses of E
only limited category incurred by political party is not
treated as expenses incurred or authorised by the
candidate. The present is not a case which can be said
to be covered by Explanation 1 (a) of Section 77 of the
Representation· of People Act, 1951. Thus, the expenses F
incurred for publishing the advertisement in the
newspapers on 17"' April, 2007 are expenses which have
to be treated to be incurred or authorised by the
candidate by virtue of Section 77 of the Representation
of People Act, 1951 and the expenses are not covered G
by exception as engrafted in Explanation- I. The Election
Commission of India, after considering all materials on
the record, has recorded a finding that the expenses were
required to be shown in the account of expenditure of
H
1350 SUPREME COURT REPORTS.
.. '
[2014] 14S.C.R

A the candidate. The petitioner has .filed the account of
expenditure as Annexure-5 to the ,writ petition. In the
account of expenditure submitted by, the petitioner neither
it is claimed that amount incurred in the above
advertisement was shown by the pet.itioner in her account
B of expenditure not it is even claim that expenditure was·
incurred by the petitioner, The petitioner's clear case is
that the aforesaid expenditure was in.curred by the political
party of which petitioner was a candidate. As per the law
laid down by the Apex Court in the abovenoted cases
c and the pleadings on the record, it is clear that the
aforesaid expenses cannot be treated to be expenses
which were not required to be shown in the account of
expenditure of the petitioner. The petitioner, thus, has to
be held to have incurred/authorize the expenses for
D publication of the aforesaid advertisement which having
not been showri in her account, the account of expenditure
submitted by the petitioner is clearly untrue and breach
was committed by the petitioner o(Section 77 of the
Representation of People Act, 1951."
. '
E 115. Before reaching the above conclusion, the Division
Bench has also taken note of the various factual details.
observed by the Election Commission in its order, as to the
nature of expenses and the stand of the Appellant as under:
"As noted above, the main issue before the Election
F
Commission of India was as to whether the expenditure
expenses incurred for publishing two advertisements on
17'h April,· 2007 in the newspapers 'Amar Ujala' and
Dainik Jagaran' were shown in the account of expenses
submitted by the petitioner und.er Section 78 of the
G Representation of People Act, ~ 951. There is no dispute
between the parties that advertisement was published
on. .17'h April, 2007 in- ttie- aforesaid
. • .
tvJo'newspapers.
• .· J;
Copy of the advertisements have ~een filed a'sAnnexure-
. 1 and 2 to the writ petition. The election Commission of
.. . :. ~;
ASHOK SHANKARRAO CHAVAN v. DR. MADHAVRAO 1351
KINHALKAR [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHJM KALIFULLA, J.]

India has specifically considered the advertisement A
published in the newspaper 'Dainik Jagran' on 1?•h April,
2010. The advertisement in the newspaper is in a block
and in the bottom of the block the word 'Advt' has been
mentioned. However, the advertisement has been
disguised as a news item and the newspape"r publication B
mentions that leaning of voters of Bisauli constitu'ency is
in favour of Smt. Umlesh Yadav, the petitioner. In the
advertisement name of petitioner has been mentioned
in several places and also the names of large number of
persons have been mentioned quoting their view that C
they are in favour of the petitioner. The said publication
mentions that voters have now decided to elect Smt.
Umlesh Yadav, the petitioner. The details of publishing
the said news item in the newspaper 'Dainik Jagran' was
called by the Election Commission of India. Both before D
the Press Council of India and the Election Commission
of India, the newspaper 'Dainik Jagran' stated that
aforesaid news publication was an advertisement for
which a bill of Rs. 21,250/- in the name of Pramod Mishra
was issued and client name was mentioned as D.P. Yadav E
and the amount was paid in cash. Similar advertisement
was published in the newspaper 'Amar Ujala' on 17th April,
2007 which advertisement was also in a block. The
advertisement although was disguised as a news item
· but was in a block. In the bottom of the block there was F
another small block with the heading 'Appeal' and in the
bottom the word 'Advt.' was mentioned. The newspaper
wa11 submitted before the Election Commission of India
as well as Press Council of India stating that the same
was advertisement in the newspaper for which a bill of G
·Rs.8,000/- in the name of D.P. Yadav was issued and
paid. B_oth ihe newspapers have submitted that materials
for publicatjon of advertisement was provided on behalf
. of the petitioner an·d the material was not collected by
correspondents of the newspapers. The petitioner's case H
1352 , SUPREME COURT REPORTS , , [2014] 14 S.C.R.
' '
A before the Election Commission of India was that only
an appeal was published by the party from which the
petitioner was contesting on 171h April, 2007 for which
an amount of Rs.840/- was paid and bill was also issued
by the newspapers of Rs.840/-. Petitioner's case is that
B the said bill was drawn in the name of D.P. Yadav, the
husband of the petitioner who was also the president of
Rashtriya Parivartan Dal. The petitioner in this writ petition
has come with specific plea that aforesaid two news
publications were published by the party i.e. the Rashtriya
c .Parivartan Dal and the expenditure of the aforesaid news
publication was paid and borne by the party. Paragraph
6 of the writ petition which contains the said pleading is
quoted below:-
'6. That at this juncture, it may be stated here
D that the aforesaid two news publications were
published by the Party, which the petitioner belong to,
viz., Rashtriya Parivartan Dal and the expenditure for
the aforesaid news publications were paid and borne
by the Party. The Photostat copies of the aforesaid
E two news publications as.published in 'Amar Ujala'
and 'Dainik Jagaran' dated 17.04.2007 are being
annexed herewith and marked asAnnexure-1 and 2,
respectively, to this writ petition.'
In the writ petition, the petitioner, has now having come
F
with the plea that advertisements were got published by
Rashtriya Parivartan Dal and the payment of publication
· was borne by the party, now the question to be considered
is as to whether expenses incurred by the party for
publishing the advertisement can be held to be expenses
G incurred or authorized. by the petitioner."
116. Apart from noting the above factual aspects relating
to the expenses claimed to have been incurred by the party,
which claim of the Appellant was rejected by the Election
H
ASHOK SHANKARRAO CHAVAN v. DR. MADHAVRAO 1353
KINHALKAR [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

Commission and also confirmed by the Division Bench of the A
High Court, the High Cciurt considered the various decisions
relied upon by on behalf of the Appellant and held as under:
"The Election Commission of India considered the entire
facts and circumstances of the present case, the reply
submitted by the petitioner on 22"d July, 2011 as well as B
the supplementary reply dated 4 1h April, 2011 and has
rightly exercised its jurisdiction under Section 1OA of the
Representation of People Act, 1951 declaring the
petitioner disqualified for three years. All the conditions
for exercise of power under Section 1 OA of the C
Representation of People Act, 1951 were fully satisfied
and we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Election
Commission of India dated 2QttrOctober, 2011 which may
warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of
discretionary jurisdiction." D
117. Having perused the above order of the Division
Bench, wherein the details with regard to the various allegations
relating to the violation in the lodging of the election expenses,
in such details, in the absence of glaring illegality or irregularity. E
pointed out before us, we have no reason to interfere with those
finding of facts arrived at by the Election Commission, which
was also confirmed by the Division Bench after a thorough
examination. Therefore, on merits as well, we do not find any
good ground to interfere with the impugned order of the Election F
Commission disqualifying the Appellant for a period of three
years. The appeals, therefore, stand dismissed.
118. The appeals(@ SLP(C) Nos.29882 of 2011 and
14209 of 2012) are dismissed with the above observations
and directions to the Election Commission. The appeal(@ G
SLP(C) No.21958 of 2013) stands dismissed. No costs.

Devika Gujral Appeals dismissed.