Election expense accounts: Election Commission may truthfulness and impose disqualification despite no pending election challenge.

Under Section 10A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, read with the election expense rules, the Election Commission may examine whether a returned candidate's account of election expenses is true, correct and lodged in the manner required by law, and may disqualify the candidate if it is not. That jurisdiction is substantive, not confined to checking filing formality. A prior dismissal of an election petition challenging the same election does not bar Section 10A proceedings, because election validity and expense-account disqualification operate in different fields. Complaints may also be entertained from persons other than voters or defeated candidates where they disclose irregularities on verifiable material.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Election Commission has jurisdiction under Section 10A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 to enquire into the truthfulness and correctness of a returned candidate's election expense account and to determine disqualification for failure to lodge such account in the manner required by law; (ii) Whether a prior dismissal of an election petition concerning the same election bars proceedings under Section 10A; (iii) Whether complaints under Section 10A can be entertained at the instance of persons other than voters or defeated candidates.

Issue (i): Whether the Election Commission has jurisdiction under Section 10A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 to enquire into the truthfulness and correctness of a returned candidate's election expense account and to determine disqualification for failure to lodge such account in the manner required by law.

Analysis: Section 10A was read with Sections 77, 78 and Rules 86 to 90 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. The statutory scheme requires not merely timely filing of a return, but lodging of a true, correct and complete account of election expenses. Rule 89 contemplates a report by the District Election Officer, consideration by the Election Commission, a show-cause notice, a representation by the candidate, and such inquiry as the Commission thinks fit. The Court held that the expression "in the time and in the manner required by or under this Act" includes the correctness and genuineness of the account, and that the enquiry under Section 10A is not confined to form. The earlier law under Section 7(c) of the 1950 Act and the decision in Sucheta Kripalani were distinguished because Section 10A, as substituted, confers a wider and more express power.

Conclusion: The Election Commission does have jurisdiction to enquire into the correctness of the election expense return and to pass a disqualification order under Section 10A.

Issue (ii): Whether a prior dismissal of an election petition concerning the same election bars proceedings under Section 10A.

Analysis: The Court distinguished the two jurisdictions. An election petition under Article 329(b) and Sections 80 to 116 concerns the validity of the election and may result in setting aside the election. Proceedings under Section 10A concern disqualification for failure to lodge election expenses in the required manner and do not determine the validity of the election. The two remedies operate in different fields, and dismissal of an election petition, even on the ground of want of material particulars, does not exclude or exhaust the Election Commission's power under Section 10A.

Conclusion: The prior dismissal of the election petition does not bar proceedings under Section 10A.

Issue (iii): Whether complaints under Section 10A can be entertained at the instance of persons other than voters or defeated candidates.

Analysis: Reading Section 10A with Rules 87 to 89, the Court held that any person may inspect the lodged account and bring serious irregularities to the notice of the Election Commission. The rule-based scheme is intended to maintain transparency and purity in elections, and the Commission is not confined to acting only on a report from the District Election Officer. Complaints based on publicly verifiable material or other reliable information are permissible.

Conclusion: The complaints were maintainable and the complainants had locus to approach the Election Commission.

Final Conclusion: The statutory framework empowers the Election Commission to conduct a substantive enquiry into election expense returns and to impose disqualification where the return is found false, untrue or improperly lodged, independently of any election petition challenging the election itself.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 10A, read with Sections 77 and 78 and Rules 86 to 90, authorises the Election Commission to examine whether the expense account is true, correct and lodged in the manner required by law, and a finding of incorrectness or falsity can sustain disqualification even where election validity is not in issue.

---