https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183798 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. en-us Tue, 30 Jul 1968 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 22 Jun 2016 10:31:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183798 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 30 Jul 1968 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183798