https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171295 Article 32 is confined to enforcement of fundamental rights and cannot be used to challenge the correctness of an earlier merits-based judgment or seek its reconsideration. The Court held that the objections advanced were founded on a misreading of the prior decision, and that observations concerning the scope of Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 did not conflict with the constitutional principle relied on by the petitioner. Any perceived gap in the statutory prohibition on corrupt practice must be addressed by legislation, not supplied through judicial interpretation of a penal provision. The writ petition was therefore not maintainable. en-us Fri, 22 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Jul 2015 18:10:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171295 Article 32 is confined to enforcement of fundamental rights and cannot be used to challenge the correctness of an earlier merits-based judgment or seek its reconsideration. The Court held that the objections advanced were founded on a misreading of the prior decision, and that observations concerning the scope of Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 did not conflict with the constitutional principle relied on by the petitioner. Any perceived gap in the statutory prohibition on corrupt practice must be addressed by legislation, not supplied through judicial interpretation of a penal provision. The writ petition was therefore not maintainable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 22 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171295