Election tribunal jurisdiction is limited to allegations necessary for surviving relief; unsupported illegal-practice findings cannot stand.

An election tribunal's jurisdiction is confined to matters materially connected with the surviving relief in the petition. Allegations of corrupt or illegal practice can be examined only where they are properly pleaded and necessary to decide the relief still open; an allegation that merely serves as evidence does not justify a separate enquiry. Applying that principle, the tribunal could not enquire into an alleged illegal practice under Section 125(3) where it had no necessary bearing on the remaining issue. The finding of illegal practice, the resulting disqualification, and the related costs order were therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Election Tribunal had jurisdiction to enquire into an alleged illegal practice under Section 125(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 when that allegation was not necessary to decide the relief that remained open after prohibition of the alternative relief. (ii) Whether the finding of illegal practice and the consequential order of disqualification could stand.

Issue (i): Whether the Election Tribunal had jurisdiction to enquire into an alleged illegal practice under Section 125(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 when that allegation was not necessary to decide the relief that remained open after prohibition of the alternative relief.

Analysis: An election petition must contain material facts relevant to the relief claimed, and particulars of corrupt or illegal practice may be given only where such practice is properly alleged in relation to the petition. The mere fact that allegations may be useful as evidence does not permit an enquiry into a charge that is unrelated to the surviving relief. The earlier prohibition against proceeding with one relief did not enlarge the Tribunal's jurisdiction so as to allow enquiry into a separate illegal-practice charge that had no necessary bearing on whether the election was wholly void.

Conclusion: The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to enquire into the illegal-practice charge, and the petitioner succeeded on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether the finding of illegal practice and the consequential order of disqualification could stand.

Analysis: Since the enquiry itself was without jurisdiction, the finding recorded on that charge and the statutory consequences flowing from it could not be sustained. The order of costs founded on that finding also could not survive.

Conclusion: The finding of illegal practice, the consequential disqualification, and the related costs order were quashed in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal's adjudication on the illegal-practice charge was set aside, while the connected appeal for prohibition was dismissed because the Tribunal had already completed the enquiry.

Ratio Decidendi: An election tribunal cannot enquire into an allegation of corrupt or illegal practice that is not necessary for deciding the relief still within its jurisdiction; jurisdiction in election matters is confined to issues materially connected with the relief maintainable in the petition.

---