Grounds for declaring election to be void
Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 deals with grounds for declaring election to be void. Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) of [the High court] is of opinion-- (a) that on the date of his election a returned candidate was not qualified, or was disqualified, to be chosen to fill the seat under the Constitution or this Act [or the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 (20 of The Act came into force on 17 Jul 1951.
1 [(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) of 2 [the High court] is of opinion--
(a) that on the date of his election a returned candidate was not qualified, or was disqualified, to be chosen to fill the seat under the Constitution or this Act 3 [or the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 (20 of 1963)]; or
(b) that any corrupt practice has been committed by a returned candidate or his election agent or by any other person with the consent of a returned candidate or his election agent; or
(c) that any nomination has been improperly rejected; or
(d) that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a returned candidate, has been materially affected--
(i) by the improper acceptance or any nomination, or
(ii) by any corrupt practice committed in the interests of the returned candidate 4 [by an agent other than his election agent], or
(iii) by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void, or
(iv) by any non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or of this Act or of any rules or orders made under this Act,
2 [the High Court] shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void.]
5 [(2)] If in the opinion of 2 [the High Court], a returned candidate has been guilty by an agent, other than his election agent, of any corrupt practice 6 *** but 2 [the High Court] is satisfied
(a) that no such corrupt practice was committed at the election by the candidate or his election agent, and every such corrupt practice was committed contrary to the orders, and 7 [without the consent], of the candidate or his election agent;
8* * * * *
(c) that the candidate and his election agent took all reasonable means for preventing the commission of corrupt 9*** practices at the election; and
(d) that in all other respects the election was free from any corrupt 9*** practice on the part of the candidate or any of his agents,
then 2 [the High Court] may decide that the election of the returned candidate is not void.
Section 100, The Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Act 43 of 1951).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Krishnamoorthy v. Sivakumar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Appeal to religion by a candidate or with his consent is a corrupt practice of undue influence under RP Act s.123(2); the election is void under s.100. Voters' freedom of choice is protected against communal/religious pressure. Use Judgment order-26.pdf (2015-01-21), not same-date order-25/27 ROPs.
On this section: Corrupt practice of undue influence is a ground to declare the election void under s.100.
-
Uttamrao Shivdas Jankar vs Ranjitsinh Vijaysinh Mohite-patil
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Improper rejection of a nomination paper under Section 100(1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 encompasses not merely errors in the decision-making process of the Returning Officer but also the correctness and merit of the decision itself. The Returning Officer, while exercising quasi-judicial power under Section 36(2) of the Act, must apply the statutory presumption of validity of nomination papers contained in the Election Commission Handbook, placing the burden on the objector to prove invalidity. The Returning Officer cannot shift this burden to the candidate. In an election petition, the High Court acts as a court of original jurisdiction conducting a civil trial, not as an appellate court merely reviewing the decision-making process. The High Court must frame issues, call for evidence from both parties, examine the veracity of rival claims, and decide the matter on merits. A statutory right of a party cannot be denied based on a wrong concession made by counsel.
On this section: Ground for declaring election void: nomination improperly rejected
-
Shyamdeo Pd. Singh vs Nawal Kishore Yadav
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Inclusion of persons in the electoral roll who are not qualified to be enrolled under Section 27 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 cannot constitute a ground for setting aside an election of a returned candidate under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, unless such persons are explicitly disqualified under Section 16 of the 1950 Act. A person validly enrolled in the electoral roll by authorized authorities is entitled to cast a vote and cannot be excluded from exercising voting rights on the ground that they did not satisfy eligibility requirements, as the electoral roll becomes final and conclusive as to qualification matters from the last date for nominations until completion of the election. The distinction between statutory disqualification (which bars voting even if enrolled) and lack of qualification (which may have required denial of enrollment but does not bar voting once enrolled) is fundamental to election law. Non-compliance with electoral roll preparation procedures, while subject to criticism and administrative correction, does not provide grounds for election petition challenge post-nomination deadline.
On this section: Specifies grounds for declaring election void including improper acceptance or rejection of nominations, corrupt practices, improper reception of votes, and non-compliance with Constitution or Act; court held inclusion of unqualified persons in electoral roll does not fall within these grounds
-
Sri Mairembam Prithviraj @ Prithibiraj Singh vs Shri Pukhrem Sharatchandra Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a candidate's nomination is improperly accepted due to false declaration of educational qualification, and there are only two candidates contesting for a single seat, the election of the returned candidate must be declared void without requiring further proof that the result was materially affected by such improper acceptance. A false declaration relating to educational qualification constitutes a defect of substantial character warranting rejection of nomination, as voters have a fundamental right to accurate information about candidates' qualifications. The distinction between improper acceptance of a returned candidate's nomination versus other candidates' nominations is critical: when the returned candidate's nomination is improperly accepted, no pleading or proof of material effect is necessary because the returned candidate would not have been able to contest the election but for such improper acceptance.
On this section: Provides grounds for declaring election void including disqualification, corrupt practices, improper rejection of nomination, and material effect on result; Section 100(1)(d) requires proof of material effect on result
-
Ajay Arun Singh vs Sharadendu Tiwari
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In election petitions challenging elections on grounds of corrupt practices, the requirement of Section 83(1) proviso can be satisfied by a single composite affidavit that covers both the verification requirements under CPC Order VI Rule 15(4) and the corrupt practice allegations, provided such affidavit is filed with the petition on the date of presentation in substantial compliance with Form 25. The question whether an affidavit was filed with the petition on the date of presentation is a pure question of fact that must be directly and substantially in issue in the proceeding for the doctrine of res judicata to apply. The failure of the Registrar to affix his signature on an affidavit does not constitute proof that the affidavit was not filed with the petition, as the act or omission of the Court shall not prejudice the rights of any party. Substantial compliance with the prescribed format of the affidavit is sufficient; absolute compliance is not necessary.
On this section: Grounds on which election of returned candidate can be declared void, including commission of corrupt practices
-
Ajay Arun Singh vs Sharadendu Tiwari
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where an election petition is filed challenging an election on grounds of corrupt practice, the requirements of verification under Order VI Rule 15(4) of CPC and the requirement of an affidavit in Form 25 under proviso to Section 83(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, can be satisfied by a single composite affidavit. Substantial compliance with statutory form requirements is sufficient; absolute compliance with prescribed format is not necessary. A defect in affidavit format is curable and does not render the election petition defective in limine. The absence of Registrar's signature on affidavit pages due to Registrar's omission does not create a rebuttable presumption that the affidavit was not filed with the original petition, as the court's act or omission shall not prejudice a party's rights. Questions of fact that were never in issue and not directly examined in earlier proceedings are not barred from being relitigated by principles of res judicata or estoppel. High Court Rules framed under Article 225 cannot override or curtail statutory provisions regarding jurisdiction of election petitions under Section 80A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
On this section: Enumerated grounds on which High Court can declare returned candidate's election void, including commission of corrupt practice by returned candidate, his agent, or others with their consent or in their interest.
-
Sri Mairembam Prithviraj @ Prithibiraj Singh vs Shri Pukhrem Sharatchandra Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the nomination of a returned candidate is found to have been improperly accepted due to a substantial defect such as false declaration of educational qualification, and there are only two candidates contesting the election, it is not necessary for the election petitioner to separately plead and prove that the result of the election was materially affected by such improper acceptance. The material effect on the result is an obvious conclusion from the circumstances, because the returned candidate would not have been able to contest the election at all if his nomination had been properly rejected. Additionally, false declaration regarding educational qualification constitutes a defect of substantial character warranting rejection of nomination under Section 36(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, as voters have a fundamental right to accurate information about candidates' qualifications.
On this section: Ground for declaring election void on basis of returned candidate's disqualification at date of election
-
Youaraj Rai vs Chander Bahadur Karki
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In an election to a Legislative Assembly (single-member constituencies), the limitation period of 45 days prescribed under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 for filing an election petition commences from the date on which the returned candidate is declared elected by the Returning Officer under Section 53 (for uncontested elections) or Section 66 (for contested elections), not from the date of publication of overall election results under Section 73. The term 'election' in Section 81 refers to the election in a particular constituency, not the entirety of elections held in the State. The second part of Section 81 (relating to multiple returned candidates with different election dates) applies only to Legislative Council and Council of States elections, not to Legislative Assembly elections.
On this section: Grounds for election petitions; Section 81 requires petitions to be presented on grounds specified in these sections
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 100
What have the courts held on Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act?
Krishnamoorthy v. Sivakumar (21 Jan 2015) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Corrupt practice of undue influence is a ground to declare the election void under s.100. Another 7 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2000 to 2016.
How do I find court cases under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: RP Act 1951 100, section 100 RP Act 1951, section 100 of the Representation of the People Act. People searching for it also type section 100 of the representation of the people act 1951. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 8 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Krishnamoorthy v. Sivakumar (21 Jan 2015).
What should I read with Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, and has it changed?
2 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it.
When did Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act come into force?
Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, cited as RP Act 1951 100, came into force on 17 Jul 1951, having been enacted on 17 Jul 1951. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 123. Corrupt practices1710 words
- 33. Presentation of nomination paper and requirement for a valid nomination1149 words
- 8. Disqualification on conviction for certain offences898 words
- 75A. Declaration of assets and liabilities659 words
- 39. Nomination of candidates at other elections632 words
- 36. Scrutiny of nominations596 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.