Account of election expenses and maximum thereof
Section 77 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 deals with account of election expenses and maximum thereof. Every candidate at an election shall, either by himself or by his election agent, keep a separate and correct account of all expenditure in connection with the election incurred or authorised by him or by his election agent between [the date on which he has been nominated] and the date of declaratio The Act came into force on 17 Jul 1951.
(1) Every candidate at an election shall, either by himself or by his election agent, keep a separate and correct account of all expenditure in connection with the election incurred or authorised by him or by his election agent between 1[the date on which he has been nominated] and the date of declaration of the result thereof, both dates inclusive.
2[Explanation 1.For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that
(a) the expenditure incurred by leaders of a 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 the expenditure in connection with the election incurred or authorised by a candidate of that political party or his election agent for the purposes of this sub-section;
(b) any expenditure incurred in respect of any arrangements made, facilities provided or any other act or thing done by any person in the service of the Government and belonging to any of the classes mentioned in clause (7) of section 123 in the discharge or purported discharge of his official duty as mentioned in the proviso to that clause shall not be deemed to be expenditure in connection with the election incurred or authorised by a candidate or by his election agent for the purposes of this sub-section.
Explanation 2.For the purposes of clause (a) of Explanation 1, the expression leaders of a political party, in respect of any election, means,
(i) where such political party is a recognised political party, such persons not exceeding forty in number, and
(ii) where such political party is other than a recognised political party, such persons not exceeding twenty in number,
whose names have been communicated to the Election Commission and the Chief Electoral Officers of the States by the political party to be leaders for the purposes of such election, within a period of seven days from the date of the notification for such election published in the Gazette of India or Official Gazette of the State, as the case may be, under this Act:
Provided that a political party may, in the case where any of the persons referred to in clause (i) or, as the case may be, in clause (ii) dies or ceases to be a member of such political party, by further communication to the Election Commission and the Chief Electoral Officers of the States, substitute new name, during the period ending immediately before forty-eight hours ending with the hour fixed for the conclusion of the last poll for such election, for the name of such person died or ceased to be a member, for the purposes of designating the new leader in his place.]
(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.
Section 77, 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.
-
Navjot Singh Sidhu vs Om Prakash Soni
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In an election petition founded on allegations of corrupt practice under Section 83(1)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the election petitioner must plead material facts and provide full particulars of the corrupt practice alleged. However, such particulars need not be accompanied by original or photocopied documentary evidence (facta probantia or evidence) if the particulars themselves are sufficiently detailed, specific, and establish the material fact in question. The distinction between facta probanda (material facts required to be pleaded) and facta probantia (evidence to prove those facts) is fundamental; the absence of evidence documents does not vitiate a petition if material facts are adequately pleaded with sufficient detail as to dates, parties, amounts, rates, and calculations. However, allegations lacking essential particulars that form an integral part of establishing the corrupt practice—such as the source of information, methodology for calculating expenses, or basis of factual assertions—do not disclose a triable issue and must be struck off.
On this section: Establishes the limit of prescribed election expenditure (Rs. 25,00,000 at the relevant time). The court examined whether the returned candidate exceeded this limit through undisclosed advertising expenses.
-
Navjot Singh Sidhu vs Om Prakash Soni
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In an election petition founded on allegations of corrupt practice, the election petitioner must plead material facts and full particulars of the corrupt practice as required under Section 83(1)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. However, the election petitioner need not enclose all supporting documentary evidence (such as photocopies of newspapers) with the petition if detailed particulars of the allegations are provided in the pleading itself. The distinction between facta probanda (material facts to be proved) and facta probantia (facts by means of which material facts are proved) is crucial; pleadings must contain material facts but not necessarily all particulars or evidence. Particulars or evidence are to be proved at trial. However, where the document itself contains the ingredients of the corrupt practice alleged (as in cases involving posters or wall-paintings), the absence of such documents may be fatal. Additionally, allegations must be supported by a clear basis or source of information; vague allegations without any foundation regarding the source or basis of information do not disclose a triable issue.
On this section: Prescribed limit for election expenditure; the Court examined whether the appellant exceeded the Rs. 25 lakh limit through newspaper and television advertisements
-
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: Restrictions on election expenditure; violation constitutes corrupt practice
-
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: Election petition challenged alleged incurring of expenditure in contravention of this section as second ground of corrupt practice.
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.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… The Hon'ble Chief Justice has referred to the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution. The Schedule incorporates a provision for the disqualification of candidates on the ground of defection, which reflects the importance of political parties in our democracy. Section 77 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, requires monetary limits to be prescribed for expenditures incurred by candidates.[65]( page-176-1) As political parties are at the helm of the electoral process, including its finances, the argument that the right of the voter does not extend to knowing the funding of …
-
… The Hon'ble Chief Justice has referred to the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution. The Schedule incorporates a provision for the disqualification of candidates on the ground of defection, which reflects the importance of political parties in our democracy. Section 77 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, requires monetary limits to be prescribed for expenditures incurred by candidates.[65]( page-176-1) As political parties are at the helm of the electoral process, including its finances, the argument that the right of the voter does not extend to knowing the funding of …
-
… The Hon'ble Chief Justice has referred to the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution. The Schedule incorporates a provision for the disqualification of candidates on the ground of defection, which reflects the importance of political parties in our democracy. Section 77 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, requires monetary limits to be prescribed for expenditures incurred by candidates.[65]( page-176-1) As political parties are at the helm of the electoral process, including its finances, the argument that the right of the voter does not extend to knowing the funding of …
Made under this section, and citing it
1 instrument states that it was made under this provision — the power to make it comes from here, so a change to any of them changes what this section requires in practice. Newest first.
Another 1 instrument names this provision in its title or its text without being made under it.
Questions about Section 77
What have the courts held on Section 77 of the Representation of the People Act?
Navjot Singh Sidhu vs Om Prakash Soni (26 Oct 2016) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Establishes the limit of prescribed election expenditure (Rs. 25,00,000 at the relevant time). The court examined whether the returned candidate exceeded this limit through undisclosed advertising expenses. Another 3 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court.
How do I find court cases under Section 77 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 77, section 77 RP Act 1951, section 77 of the Representation of the People Act. People searching for it also type section 77 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. 4 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Navjot Singh Sidhu vs Om Prakash Soni (26 Oct 2016).
What should I read with Section 77 of the Representation of the People Act, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 123 (Corrupt practices), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 4 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. The rules and notifications made under it are where it actually bites, and there is one: most recently The Conduct of Elections (Amendment) Rules, 2022 (2022).
When did Section 77 of the Representation of the People Act come into force?
Section 77 of the Representation of the People Act, cited as RP Act 1951 77, 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 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.