Strict compliance for nomination papers and religious appeals in campaigning may amount to undue influence under election law.

Strict compliance with Section 33(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 was required at scrutiny, so a candidate whose name appeared in another constituency had to produce the prescribed electoral roll copy or certified extract; failure to do so justified rejection of the nomination paper. Political speech on cow slaughter remained permissible, but repeated assertions that voting for a named party would entail the sin of gohatya and divine displeasure crossed the statutory limit, as they interfered with free electoral choice and amounted to undue influence under Section 123(2)(ii). The nomination objection therefore failed, while the finding of corrupt practice was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the rejection of the nomination paper for failure to comply with the requirement of producing the prescribed electoral roll material under Section 33(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, was justified; (ii) Whether speeches attributing cow slaughter to the Congress and stating that voting for the Congress would involve the sin of gohatya amounted to corrupt practice under Section 123(2)(ii) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Issue (i): Whether the rejection of the nomination paper for failure to comply with the requirement of producing the prescribed electoral roll material under Section 33(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, was justified.

Analysis: A candidate whose name is entered in the electoral roll of another constituency must produce, at or before scrutiny, a copy of that roll, the relevant part thereof, or a certified copy of the relevant entries. The candidate did not produce any such document. A certificate based on an affidavit and not shown to be a certified copy of the electoral roll was insufficient. The requirement was mandatory and could not be relaxed by the returning officer or the court. Minor inaccuracies in the certificate did not alter the clear failure to comply with the statutory condition.

Conclusion: The rejection of the nomination paper was justified.

Issue (ii): Whether speeches attributing cow slaughter to the Congress and stating that voting for the Congress would involve the sin of gohatya amounted to corrupt practice under Section 123(2)(ii) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Analysis: The evidence accepted by the High Court showed that the returned candidate and his election agent repeatedly told voters that voting for the Congress would make them guilty of gohatya and would expose them to divine displeasure or spiritual censure. Legitimate political propaganda on cow slaughter was not objectionable, but the added exhortation that support for the Congress would entail a religious sin crossed the statutory limit. Such appeals interfered with the free exercise of electoral choice and fell within undue influence as defined by the Act.

Conclusion: The speeches constituted corrupt practice under Section 123(2)(ii) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the election failed because, although the nomination objection was rejected, the finding of corrupt practice was upheld and the election was avoided.

Ratio Decidendi: Strict compliance is required for the statutory documents to be produced at scrutiny, and a political appeal that tells voters they will incur religious sin or divine displeasure by voting for a particular candidate amounts to undue influence and corrupt practice.

---