Election petitions: how an election result is challenged in court

Article 329(b) of the Constitution begins "Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution" and says no election to Parliament or a state legislature "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". Section 80 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 repeats the rule: no election may be questioned except by an election petition under Part VI of the Act.

In N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal (21 January 1952), the Supreme Court read "election" widely, to cover the whole process up to the declaration of the winner. It held that matters that could vitiate an election should be raised at the proper stage, before the special forum, and not before an ordinary court in the middle of the process. The case itself concerned a rejected nomination paper, which could be challenged only after the result, through an election petition.

Under section 81, a petition may be presented by "any candidate at such election or any elector". An elector means a person who was entitled to vote at that election, whether or not they voted. Under section 80A, the High Court has jurisdiction, and the Chief Justice assigns a single Judge to hear such petitions.

The 45 days run from the date of election of the returned candidate. Section 67A says this is the date on which the returning officer declares the candidate elected. If there are several winners with different dates, the later date counts. A High Court "shall dismiss" a petition that does not comply with section 81 (time), section 82 (parties) or section 117 (security), so a late petition fails whatever its merits.

• A concise statement of the material facts the petitioner relies on (section 83).
• Full particulars of any corrupt practice alleged, including the names of the persons involved and the date and place (section 83).
• The petitioner's signature and verification as for a pleading in a civil suit.
• For a corrupt-practice allegation, an affidavit in support, which under rule 94A of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 is sworn before a first-class magistrate, notary or commissioner of oaths in Form 25.
• One attested copy for each respondent.

Section 82 says the petitioner must join the returned candidate as a respondent, and every other contesting candidate if they also ask to be declared elected. Any candidate against whom a corrupt practice is alleged must also be joined. The petitioner cannot add a new corrupt practice later: the court may allow particulars to be amended, but not to introduce a practice not previously alleged (section 86(5)).

The first three grounds are enough on their own. The fourth needs the petitioner to show that the result was materially affected. Even where a corrupt practice was committed by an agent other than the election agent, section 100(2) lets the court decide the election is not void if the candidate had not consented and took all reasonable means to prevent it.

A second candidate list, the one for disqualification of sitting members, is separate. See also filing nomination and candidate disclosures for how nominations are scrutinised.

A recount is first a matter for the returning officer. Under rule 63 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, after the totals are announced a candidate or agent may apply in writing for a recount, wholly or in part, giving grounds. The returning officer decides in writing with reasons and may reject a request that seems "frivolous or unreasonable". Once the result sheet is signed, no further application is entertained. See how votes are counted.

In court, an election petition is tried much like a civil suit under the Code of Civil Procedure (section 87), and the hearing is to continue from day to day as far as practicable (section 86(6)). Recounts are not ordered on suspicion. In Ram Sewak Yadav v. Hussain Kamil Kidwai (1964) the Supreme Court said inspection of ballot papers needs two things: the petition must state material facts, and the court must be prima facie satisfied that inspection is necessary to decide the dispute. It cannot be used to fish for evidence.

Section 86(7) says the trial shall be tried "as expeditiously as possible" and that "endeavour shall be made" to conclude it within six months. That wording sets a target, not a deadline. The Law Commission's Report No. 255 recorded that, of 110 petitions filed after the 2009 Lok Sabha election, none was decided within six months, and at least 21 took three years or more.

As reported by LiveLaw on 16 July 2026, the Supreme Court declined a plea to direct the Madras High Court to expedite election petitions (at least 54 were reported filed over the 2026 Assembly elections), and the petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the High Court. We have not verified how those petitions have moved since.

A person found guilty of a corrupt practice is not automatically barred. Under section 8A, the case is sent to the President, who decides after obtaining and acting on the Election Commission's opinion whether to disqualify the person, and the period cannot exceed six years from the date the order takes effect.

The Rae Bareli case is included only as a documented instance of the process, including the stay under section 116B. The judgment and the sequence of events are summarised from the Supreme Court texts linked below.