Contents of petition
Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 deals with contents of petition. An election petition.— (a) shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies; The Act came into force on 17 Jul 1951.
1[83. Contents of petition.—(1) An election petition.—
(a) shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies;
(b) shall set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice that the petitioner alleges, including as full a statement as possible of the names of the parties alleged to have committed 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 (5 of 1908) for the verification of pleadings:
2[Provided that where the petitioner alleges any corrupt practice, the petition shall also be accompanied by an affidavit in the prescribed form in support of the allegation of such corrupt practice and the particulars thereof.]
(2) Any schedule or annexure to the petition shall also be signed by the petitioner and verified in the same manner as the petition].
Section 83, 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.
Referred to by 1
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: Section 83(1)(a) applies to election petitions without corrupt practice allegations and requires only material facts. Section 83(1)(b) applies to petitions with corrupt practice allegations and mandates 'concise statement of material facts' plus 'full particulars of corrupt practice' with supporting affidavit. The court distinguished between these two provisions and their pleading requirements.
-
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: Requirements for election petitions; Section 83(1)(b) specifically requires that election petitions founded on corrupt practice allegations must contain concise statement of material facts and full particulars of the corrupt practice alleged
-
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: Requirement that election petition be verified and accompanied by affidavit in prescribed form when corrupt practices are alleged; proviso requires affidavit in prescribed form in support of corrupt practice allegations
-
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 challenging election on ground of corrupt practice must be accompanied by affidavit in prescribed form. Court examined whether one or two affidavits are required and whether substantial or strict compliance is necessary.
-
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: Requires election petition to contain concise statement of material facts on which petitioner relies
-
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: Material particulars required in election petition based on corrupt practices
-
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: Requires election petition to contain concise statement of material facts on which petitioner relies
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 83
What have the courts held on Section 83 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: Section 83(1)(a) applies to election petitions without corrupt practice allegations and requires only material facts. Section 83(1)(b) applies to petitions with corrupt practice allegations and mandates 'concise statement of material facts' plus 'full particulars of corrupt practice' with supporting affidavit. The court distinguished between these two provisions and their pleading requirements. Another 6 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2009 to 2016.
How do I find court cases under Section 83 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 83, section 83 RP Act 1951, section 83 of the Representation of the People Act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 7 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 83 of the Representation of the People Act, and has it changed?
1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it.
When did Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act come into force?
Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, cited as RP Act 1951 83, 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.