1985 (5) TMI 256 - SC - Indian Laws

Court upholds validity of Section 77(1) Explanation 1 under Representation of the People Act, 1951

The court upheld the constitutional validity of Explanation 1 to Section 77(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, dismissing the writ ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of Explanation 1 to Section 77(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.2. Whether Explanation 1 violates Article 14 of the Constitution.3. Interpretation of Section 77(1) and Explanation 1 regarding election expenses.4. Impact of Explanation 1 on the principle of free and fair elections.5. The role of political parties in incurring election expenses.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of Explanation 1 to Section 77(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951:The petitioner challenged the validity of Explanation 1 to Section 77(1) of the Act, arguing that it permits political parties to spend unlimited amounts on the election of their candidates, undermining the fairness of elections. The Explanation was introduced to counter the Supreme Court's judgment in Kanwar Lal Gupta v. Amar Nath Chawla, which held that expenses incurred by political parties for a candidate should be included in the candidate's election expenses.2. Whether Explanation 1 violates Article 14 of the Constitution:The petitioner argued that Explanation 1 violates Article 14 by creating inequality among political parties based on their financial strength. The court, however, found that Explanation 1 classifies all political parties, associations, and individuals in one group, allowing them to incur election expenses without being counted as the candidate's expenses. This classification was deemed reasonable and not violative of Article 14.3. Interpretation of Section 77(1) and Explanation 1 regarding election expenses:Section 77(1) mandates that candidates keep a separate and correct account of all election expenses incurred or authorized by them. Explanation 1 clarifies that expenses incurred by political parties or other entities are not deemed to be incurred by the candidate. The court emphasized that Explanation 1 does not create a fiction but deals with the reality that political parties incur expenses independently of the candidate's funds.4. Impact of Explanation 1 on the principle of free and fair elections:The petitioner contended that Explanation 1 dilutes the principle of free and fair elections by allowing the influence of big money. The court acknowledged the petitioner's concern but stated that it is not within the court's purview to question legislative policies unless they violate the Constitution. The court noted that the ceiling on election expenses aims to curb the influence of money, but Explanation 1 does not render Section 77(1) meaningless.5. The role of political parties in incurring election expenses:The court recognized the significant role of political parties in the democratic process and justified the special treatment accorded to them under Explanation 1. It was noted that political parties are essential for the functioning of democracy, and their ability to incur election expenses should not be unduly restricted. The court also clarified that if a candidate provides funds to a political party for election expenses, such expenses would still be considered as incurred by the candidate.Conclusion:The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the constitutional validity of Explanation 1 to Section 77(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. It ruled that the provision does not violate Article 14 and is a reasonable classification that does not undermine the principle of free and fair elections. The court emphasized the importance of political parties in the electoral process and the need to allow them to incur election expenses independently.