This article is written by Anmol Singh Khanuja, pursuing a Certificate Course in Advanced Criminal Litigation & Trial Advocacy from LawSikho.com.

Introduction

Once, Aristophanes, a Greek comedian presented a quote regarding elections that is–to win the people, always cook them some savory that pleases them’. Much before this quote was presented, the term ‘Democracy’ came into existence in Greece, which is now prevalent in almost every country. This quote can be explained in many ways but to explain the righteousness of any Individual, I would like to quote Mahatma Gandhi who once said that– ‘What is really needed to make democracy function is not the knowledge of facts, but right education’.

This right education is something that seems to be missing when we observe that election offences are committed. The absence of this right education among the voters allows the Candidates and Political Parties to commit unobserved crimes during elections.

Election crimes are willful or intentional acts or practices conducted by a political party or candidate or any other person in connection to affect the outcome or result of a particular election and as J.P. Naik once quoted that– Power is something which is a spoiler of men and the concept of power is more prevalent in a country like India where hungry stomachs produce power-hungry politicians.

Amongst the important postulates of democracy, free and fair elections hold a significant place because the essence of a democratic election is based on freedom of choice. A choice that has been interpreted as a natural right of the Individuals in almost every democratic country. Now when this choice is affected, it not only threatens the election process but it gives a major blow to the democratic set-up of the country.

Some of the general offences which are often carried out during elections are:

1. Force or use of power by political parties/ candidates through government officials or official machinery in the form of coercion, intimidation, misrepresentation, personation, undue influence, etc.
2. Excessive indirect and direct expenditure by political parties in the form of bribery i.e. distributing that money among the voters or not distributing money but distributing goods such as blankets, liquors, etc.
3. Sometimes misleading propaganda, false allegations which are in relation to the personal character of a candidate or an appeal by the parties or candidates by spreading disaffection which leads to disharmony or enmity among the diverse sections of the society.

All of the above practices portray a lack of political consciousness of the persons and parties which perform these activities as well as the success of these activities portrays a bad message to voters as well as international media.

So, the threats to the Indian democracy are criminalization of the electoral process and the communalization which occurs during elections. By criminalization, I do not mean only individuals with criminal records taking part as candidates but I also mean the use of money and muscle power to induce or intimidate the voters taking part in the election process, and by communalization, I mean the divisive methods used by politicians.

Electoral Manipulation

An election is said to be manipulated when there’s a deviation from an ideal type of election. As the concept of manipulation is so wide, there exists a need to explain a few principles which form the basis of an ideal type election, which cannot be seen in recent times, those principles are:

• Inclusion: this means that the franchise must be universal also known as Universal Adult franchise.
• Free demand: this means that the voters must be free to form their opinions by accessing plural sources of information.
• Insulation: this means that the vote must be free from bribery or coercion.
• Integrity: there should be honest counting of votes and the principle of one person one vote should be followed.
• Free supply: this an atmosphere where voters should have a wide range of candidates.
• Irreversibility: this means that the winner should be able to access and complete their terms in office.

The aforementioned principles are manipulated through the kind of practices followed by the candidates and parties, the examples of these practices are–

• Tampering the list of voters;
• Creating obstacles for registration of a voter;
• By creating obstacles for candidate registration;
• By intimidating voters before the election through vote-buying;
• By intimidating candidates to withdraw their nomination;
• By making a person vote multiple times; and
• By making a person vote who is ineligible i.e. minors, etc.

All of the aforementioned things take place in the form of clientelism and patronage.

Demographic manipulation

This is a kind of electoral manipulation which is intentionally done before elections, this means the contamination of existing population in a particular area by allowing the non-residents to settle in that area and grant them voting rights based on the time allotted by the concerned government, examples to this are:

• Allowing the migrants from other states to settle and then granting them voter rights.
• Allowing foreign country migrants to settle in a particular electorate so the advantage of votes can be obtained.

These kinds of activities are also done to decrease the vote share of people of a particular caste, religion, etc. who are dominant since years, so the politicians choose this path to break the dominant character and shift the power or balance the power.

Then we observe Disenfranchisement:

This is a kind of method where a particular or specified population is barred from casting votes in elections, now this is also done through many ways like, by creating obstacles during the registration in voter list or sometimes when caste politics is played then a caste or community which is observed to be not in favor of the dominant party then many names from the voters’ list are dropped, which belong to that community.

Disenfranchisement is also used as a tool that is ambivalent towards demographic manipulation. The positive side can be, that only the permanent residents are allowed to vote in an electorate. The negative can always be the argument of discrimination.

What are the offences and what are its judicial interpretations

The unlawful activities pertaining to elections can be brought under the ambit of certain sections mentioned in the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 (hereafter RPA) i.e. from section 125 to 136 and Chapter IXA of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter IPC).

1. The first thing which strikes our mind is Bribery:

Bribery as an offence is prescribed u/s 171E of the IPC and that an act of bribery is committed by the person who not only grants these funds, but also the persons who accept such kind of gratifications. This kind of gratification is made by the candidates within 48 hours to the polling though it is violative of the model code of conduct, still, these lucrative offers are being made to a class of society whose votes can be turned overnight.

Which are the different cases related to bribery:

• In N. Angami V. Smt. Ravouleu^[i], it was held that any-kind of general promises made for public welfare or which amounts to redressal of public grievances made by a candidate holding a responsible position in the government like minister cannot be termed as bribery.
• In Rajanand V. Bhawandas^[ii], it was held that payments made by a returning candidate for the installation of fans in gurudwara, for construction of gurudwara and for his success, cannot amount to bribery.
• Whereas in Badgi V. Hari Vishnu Kamath^[iii], the candidate promised construction of well if voters voted for him, and for this purpose, the money was deposited, this invited corrupt practice u/s 123 (1) of the RPA.
• It was held in a Supreme Court case that if the government is granting dearness allowance or any kind of exemptions to the government employees on the eve of elections then this would not be considered as bribery^[iv].
• In Bhanu Shastri V. Mohan Sukhodia^[v], it was pronounced by the Apex Court that any kind of public or social service by ministers which is done to solve the grievances of the people shouldn’t be considered as offers but the court should be vigilant towards the genuineness and corrupt motives of the candidates.

2. The next major interpretive concept is Undue Influence:

The definition as per Section 171C of the IPC is any person who interferes or tries to interfere with anybody’s electoral right, voluntarily. Meaning thereby the person has threatened any candidate or voter or has caused inducement then undue influence is said to be committed. However, the definition is much wider because of the absence of the words ‘indirect and direct’ in the section^[vi].

• In Ramdayal V. Santlal^[vii] spiritual heads or leaders of any religion, when they canvas for a particular candidate and if they leave no choice to the voters implying that they would cause disobedience then that would amount to undue influence.
• The Allahabad High Court in Jagannadh Prasad V. Kamalapathi Tripathi^[viii] held that a candidate who has threatened the other candidate to not canvas would amount to undue influence.

It was also held in a case that, if strong criticism or any-kind of photos is attached of martyrs wouldn’t amount to undue influence.

In some of the cases, it was also held that mere expression and statements wouldn’t amount to undue influence until they’re accompanied by inducement which may be in relation to a spiritual or divine announcement.

3. The next that comes is Any kind of Appeal which is related to caste, community race or religion:

This form of politics isn’t new, we all have witnessed this kind in some or the other way. Thus, the offence is specified in section 123 (3) of the RPA. It is important to note here that usage of religious symbols or national symbols is also prohibited, these can also be treated as corrupt practices but there exist some cases which arise confusion.

• An appeal in the name of religion would be considered as a corrupt practice even if the opponent is of the same religion^[ix].
• In Indira Nehru Gandhi V. Raj Narrain^[x], it was held by the Supreme Court that the usage of ‘cow and calf’ in elections was a corrupt practice.
• But in Jogdev Singh Sidhanti’s case^[xi], it was held by the Supreme Court that the use of ‘Om’ flag (which is a religious symbol) to gather Hindu votes during elections wasn’t observed as a corrupt practice.
• In another election case of Harcharan Singh V. Sajjan Singh^[xii], where an appeal was made to the Sikhs through speeches and Hukamnama to elect the returning candidate. The Supreme Court held that it was a corrupt practice u/s 123 (3) of the RPA.
• The Supreme Court of India also set aside the election of a Shiv Sena Candidate where the Shiv Sena Chief Bal Thackeray appealed to vote for Dr. Ramesh Prabhoo of Shiv Sena otherwise “Hindus will be finished”^[xiii].
• IN Mohammed Koya V. Muthu Koya^[xiv], it was held that any-kind of publication of cartoons that affects religious sentiments would be construed as a corrupt practice.
• Then comes the most debated judgement, also known as the Hindutva judgement^[xv], the issues in this case were:

1. Usage of ‘Hindutva’ word in the election is related to Hindu religion.
2. Speeches made by the agents of Manohar Joshi would amount to corrupt practice.
3. Manohar Joshi’s campaign was based on Hindutva campaign thus inviting corrupt practice.

The Bombay High Court declared the election of Manohar Joshi void u/s 100 of the RPA.

But the Supreme Court of India gave an interesting judgment by setting aside the Bombay High Court judgment. The Apex Court said that the speeches made by the election agents were made without the consent of the candidate, thus the candidate would not be entitled to corrupt practice.

Secondly, the usage of the word ‘Hindutva’ would not invite corrupt practice under section 123 (3) of the RPA.

The Supreme Court of India, in this case, said that the High Court of Bombay overlooked sections 98 and 99 of the RPA while declaring the election void and thus committed a fatal error. Accordingly, the election of Manohar Joshi was upheld by the Supreme Court and said that Hindutva cannot be equated with the Hindu religion and thus not a corrupt practice.

It was also alleged in the Court that Manohar Joshi in a meeting on February 24^th, 1990 said that the first Hindu State will be established in Maharashtra. But the Court was of the view that a mere statement per se cannot be construed as an appeal on the ground of religion. After this judgement, L.K Advani the then party chief of BJP said that the judgment is the judicial seal to BJP’s Ideology.

It is important to note here that in Ramesh Prabhoo’s^[xvi] case, the Supreme Court said that ‘ordinarily Hindutva is understood as a state of mind or way of life but it should not be equated with or understood as religious Hindu fundamentalism.

The stands taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court appears to be confusing when compared with a 9 Judge bench decision on S.R. Bommai’s case^[xvii], where it talked about Secularism and other principles.

4. Causing enmity or hatred in the name or ground of religion, caste etc.:

Clause 3A of section 123 of the RPA talks about this offence where any-kind of attempt to promote feelings of hatred and enmity among the diverse classes of citizens but it shall only be construed as corrupt practice when it is conducted by the candidate or his agent or any other person with the consent of the candidate or his agent:

• In the case of Ebrahim Suleman V. M.C. Mohammed^[xviii], the Supreme Court gave a much wide definition of 3A of section 123 of the RPA, where it said that a speech may have the ability to cause enmity among the classes of citizens even when the target is a political party. It also said that no political party can be termed ‘Irreligious’ because there’s no such provision in the law. It further said that communal parties can be formed because the law doesn’t prohibit the formation of such parties.
• In another case of Das Deshmukh V. kamal Manasahib^[xix], where the Supreme Court held the publication of a poster by Shiv Sena candidate under the purview of 123 (3) RPA. The poster contained an appeal to vote ‘to teach Muslims a lesson.

5. The next comes is Publication of false and defamatory statements:

This offence is described under subsection 4 of the 123 of the RPA and section 171G of the IPC. Both the codifications define that when a candidate or his agent or any other person with the consent of that candidate or the agent publishes a piece of information or a fact which is false and which he thinks or believes to be false or not true in relation to the personal character or conduct of the candidate. Then that would amount to corrupt practice.

Since independence, it was thought or believed by the constitutional thinkers that in a free country, the election campaigns would be educative and sensible, so that not only does the voter know the fact but the voter should be responsible and educated enough to form an opinion. But the irresponsible statements given by the politicians have created a huge imbroglio.

• In certain Supreme Court cases, it was held that any statement which is related to the public conduct of a particular candidate and that the publisher bonafide believes that the statement is true then this would not be considered under the purview of corrupt practice.^{[xx] [xxi] [xxii] [xxiii]}
• The Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Hamid Chowdhury V. Nani Gopal Swami & Ors.^[xxiv] Held that if a particular article which is offending in nature, appears to be circulated and read by the people would be considered as a corrupt practice under 123 (4) RPA.
• The view of Supreme Court in the case of Sheopal Singh V. Ram Pratap^[xxv] was taken in Mangilal V. Krishna Rao^[xxvi] and Raghunath V. Krishna Chandra^[xxvii] where the Apex Court clarified that when a statement is made which is false but made in good faith would not come under the purview of 123 (4) of the RPA.
• In the case of Inder Singh V. Lal Singh^[xxviii], the Supreme Court said that a false statement can affect the private as well as public character and thus here should exist a line to distinguish the private and personal character.

6. Hiring of vehicles for free conveyance of voters

Section 123 (5) talks about this corrupt practice where illegal procuring or hiring of vehicles for the free transportation of voters. This hiring or procuring which is based on payment or promise to pay or otherwise for any vehicle by the agent or a candidate or party can be a ground for corruption under 123 (5) of the RPA.

Thus, carving out two essentials:

1. Procuring or hiring of vehicles otherwise or on payment by a candidate or his agent.
2. And then using the vehicle for FREE transportation of voters.

In the following:

• The Supreme Court nullified the election of the respondent in the case of M. Sheshadhari V. G.V. Pai^[xxix], where the reasoning given by the Apex Court was that carrying or transporting people to polling stations was violative of the model code of conduct and had thereby caused hindrance to the choice of voters.
• In Balwan Singh V. Prakash Chand^[xxx], the candidate used a tractor that belonged to his wife, the Supreme Court held it as a corrupt practice. It said that the essence is, free conveyance of voters and not the contract of hiring or procurement.
• But in Chenna Byre Gowda V. S.R. Ramiah^[xxxi], here the voters were transported by a partner who was in relation to the candidate but there existed nothing which proved that the candidate hired or procured the vehicle and thus the Mysore High Court held that, where there is an absence of consent of the candidate, it would not be entitled to be brought under the ambit of corrupt practice.

7. Threatening election officers

This offence is prescribed under section 123 (2) of the RPA, the protection of the election officers is a necessary thing because the election officers are directly involved with the conduct of elections.

• The Supreme Court in the case of Har Swaroop V. Brij Bhushan^[xxxii] disqualified the respondent who threatened the election officer at the polling station and in this judgement the Apex Court also said that greater security should be ensured to the officers during elections.

8. Excessive Expenditure

In most democratic countries, there’s a statutory limit that is fixed for every candidate during elections. Persons incurring more than this limit can be brought under the ambit of section 123 (6) of the RPA and sometimes they can also be brought under the ambit of section 171H and 171I of the IPC which talks about illegal payments and failure to keep election accounts respectively. This is the main reason the politicians generally show their incurred expenditure in advertisements, pamphlets, and banners. As the non-disclosure of other expenditures is not a corrupt practice until proven. For example: if the statutory cap is of 1 lakh for a candidate then that candidate will show the expense of 1 lakh in advertisements and other materialistic things and the extra money which the candidate would use for bribery or other illegal payments would never be brought under the ambit of election accounts because that expenditure isn’t visible if done by the candidate or his agents until proven.

• In Indira Nehru Gandhi V. Raj Narain^[xxxiii], the Supreme Court held that any-kind of voluntary expenses which are borne by the relatives, sympathizers, or friends, without any request or authority by the candidate then it wouldn’t be deemed as expenditure by the candidate.
• But in the case of Kanwarlal V. Amarnath Chawla^[xxxiv], it was held by the Supreme Court that political parties incur a lot of expenditure on a candidate and by this, the main purpose of the ceiling or expenditure cap stands frustrated if the parties are allowed to incur as much they like.

Unfortunately, the effect of this judgment was nullified when the parliament added explanation number 1 to section 77of the RPA in 1975 and 2003.

9. Assistance of Government servant

Section 123 (7) of the RPA talks about this offence. Points that are to be kept in mind are that any kind of obtainment or procurement including attempt and abetment, which if made by the candidate or his election agent from a government servant would invite offence under the ambit of section 123 (7) of the RPA. The kinds of government servants are mentioned under clause a, b, c, d, e, f, g, and h of subsection 7 of section 123 of the RPA, those include gazette officers, judges & magistrates, member of the armed forces, members of the police excise officers, revenue officers, etc.

• In Indira Nehru Gandhi V. Raj Narain^[xxxv], it was held by the Supreme Court that to bring any activity this ambit of this subsection, the consent of the candidate must be important. Secondly, that public servant should be the one specified in the categories, and most importantly, if the help is rendered voluntarily without any attempt by the candidate then this act would not be brought under the ambit of this section.
• In the case of S. Sasidharan V. K. Karunakaran^[xxxvi], here two civil servants canvassed for the returned candidate. When the matter went to the Supreme Court, it was held that they didn’t canvass as the speeches of the civil servants appeared to be in relation to the progress of the society. Thus, the Apex Court on technical grounds refused to set aside the election. Although, an important point to note here is that the Central Civil Services (conduct) rules, 1964 prohibits the participation of civil servants in politics.
• In the case of Dhartipakar V. Rajiv Gandhi^[xxxvii], the Supreme Court explained briefly about this corrupt practice, where it said that the court of law should determine, what the measure of assistance was; mode of assistance, and all the facts which are related to the assistance. So that the charge of corrupt practice is proved beyond reasonable doubt and in the instant case as there existed no evidence. Hence the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and upheld the election of Rajiv Gandhi.

10. Booth Capturing

Section 135A and Subsection 8 of 123 RPA talks about booth capturing. The definition as per these sections is:

1. Whenever a polling station or any place which is fixed for a poll is seized by a person or group of persons and who compels the election officers to surrender the relevant polling papers or machines or any other act which affects the conduct of elections.
2. Group of persons taking possession of the polling place and allowing only their supporters to exercise the electoral right and not others.
3. Threatening or coercing or intimidating any voter with the main aim of preventing him to exercise his right to vote, by preventing him from going to the polling station.
4. Seizing the place where counting of votes would be carried out or is carrying on or any other act which affects the counting of votes.
5. Any civil servant who is involved in the aforementioned activities will also be liable.

• The Supreme Court in the case of Baldev Singh Mann V. Guruchara Singh (MLA) & others^[xxxviii], held that as the proceedings u/s 123 (1) to 123 (8) of the RPA are Quasi-criminal in nature, there should exist a ‘strict proof’ of the same and once it is proved beyond reasonable doubt then not only the candidate is disqualified and the election is held void, but the candidate may be punished with imprisonment u/s 135A. Hence, the evidence should be judged with regard to the well-established principles.

There exist some Other Offences, let’s discuss those too:

11. Section 125A of the RPA deals with False Affidavit by the candidate meaning thereby that any candidate who furnishes any false information or conceals any information which is necessary as per the election commission prescribed norms then that person shall be either imprisoned or fined or maybe both.
12. Section 126 of the RPA talks about not holding, attending, joining and convening any public meeting which is in connection with the elections and other acts during the period of 48 hours, till the conclusion of polls.
13. Section 126A of the RPA talks about certain restrictions on publication and dissemination of results through exit polls, etc. Section 126B provides a wide ambit of bringing the companies liable for malpractices.
14. Section 127A talks about restrictions on printing of posters, pamphlets, etc.
15. Section 128 of the RPA talks about the maintenance of secrecy during and after voting.
16. Section 129 of the RPA says that any officer shouldn’t act for a candidate, so as to influence the voting.
17. Section 130 talks about prohibition on canvassing in or near the prescribed limits of the polling station(s).
18. Section 131 of the RPA talks about the penalty for any-kind of disorderly conduct in or near polling stations meaning thereby any-kind of operation of amplifiers or loudspeakers or causing any-kind of annoyance to any person who is visiting the polling station to vote.
19. Section 132 of RPA talks about misconduct at the polling station meaning that every person ought to obey the lawful directions of the electoral officers.
20. Section 134 of the RPA talks about breach of official duty which is in relation to elections. Section 134A of the RPA makes a specification for a government servant.
21. Section 134B of the RPA is important which talks about prohibition on going armed to or near the specified polling place and imposes liability under Arms Act, 1959 too.
22. Section 135 of the RPA talks about the unauthorized removal of ballot papers from polling stations to be an offence.
23. Section 135C talks about liquor not to be sold or distributed till the polling day makes the person liable for imprisonment upto 6 months or with fine.
24. Section 136 of the RPA talks about the other offences.

Recent judicial developments

• In Union of India V. Association of Democratic Reforms^[xxxix], the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India upheld the decision pronounced by the Delhi High Court regarding the disclosure of details of a candidate. The Apex Court said here that people should know about the candidate as they have the ‘Right to know/ Information’ under the ambit of Article 19 of the Constitution of India. These details would include education qualifications, criminal background & Assets, and Liabilities of the candidate and the respective family. Accordingly, the Parliament amended the RPA and included the above points but later on, the parliament enacted the RTI (Right to Information) Act 2005 which automatically included this disclosure by the candidates.
• In Lily Thomas V. Union of India^[xl], the Supreme Court here ruled that the elected candidates be it MPs, MLAs or MLCs, who have been convicted for offences punishable with minimum of 2 years of Imprisonment should be disqualified from the date of sentence. The Supreme Court also held section 8 (4) of the RPA unconstitutional which allowed convicted persons 3 months for appeal against conviction.

It is pertinent to note here that both the Election Commission of India and the 244^th report by the Law Commission of India states that there should be a lifetime disqualification of a candidate from contesting election if the candidate is convicted.

• In the case of Public Interest Foundation V. Union of India^[xli] decided on 25-09-2018, the Constitutional bench of the Supreme Court unanimously decided that they cannot disqualify a candidate from contesting elections against whom criminal charges have been framed. The Court stated the separation of powers where a judicial body cannot engage in the law-making process. But it is important to note here that the Apex Court has asked the parliament to come forward with a law that forbids the entry of the accused candidates. The Apex Court concluded with a view that– Though Criminalization of politics is a ‘bitter manifest truth’ which is a termite to the citadel of democracy, the court can’t make a law to check it.
• But in the recent judgment of Rambabu Singh Thakur V. Sunil Arora^[xlii], the Supreme Court’s division bench consisting of Justice R.F. Nariman and Justice S.R. Bhatt iterated that political parties, as well as the Parliament, should comply with the aforementioned 2018 judgement. The Apex Court in the instant case reiterated certain directions which were pronounced in the 2018 judgment of Public interest foundation, the directions were:

1. The reasons as to the selection of that particular candidate.
2. Upload every detail on the party website about the pending criminal case.
3. Information should be published in a local as well as a national newspaper and also on social media platforms.
4. Political parties should submit a proper report of compliance with the aforementioned clauses to the concerned commission within 72 hours.
5. If parties or a party fails to submit the report to the election commission then the Election Commission is obliged to inform the Supreme Court.

Conclusion

From the aforementioned things I’ve observed that the world is a confusing place because for every stand, one has either the Law or judgment in hand. Wherein the recent judicial developments show a good amount of progress concerning the criminalization of politics but this progress leads us to a greater concern which is the increase in the number of candidates with criminal charges. If we observe the last 4 Indian General Elections, things have gone worse wherein 2004 there were around 23% of the members in Loksabha, who were accused of criminal offences, the percentage went up to 30% in 2009, 34% in 2014 and unfortunately 43% in 2019 (with 29% of the candidates facing serious criminal charges).

What I felt is that there exist a certain amount of ambiguity in the pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and what I think we need is, much more strict vigilance and stricter laws meaning thereby increasing the term of punishment in the penal provisions, so that when the law appears to be strict then automatically gravity of the offence increases in the minds of the people.

The Election Commission, as well as the concerned government(s), also need to ensure that there is a proper communication made specifically for these offences so that the people are well informed about their rights as well as their obligations, as free and fair elections are the essence of a healthy democratic country which ensures freedom of choice and not choice manipulation. Thus, these things are possible when:

• We follow values (moral + ethical) based politics.
• When we separate religion from politics.
• When there exists no coercion from the state machinery.
• And most importantly, when we deliver Right Education.

Citations

^[i] AIR 1972 SC 2367.

^[ii] AIR 1971 SC 241.

^[iii] AIR 1960 M 362.

^[iv] AIR 1979 SC 211.

^[v] AIR 1971 SC 2025.

^[vi] AIR 1968 SC 904.

^[vii] AIR 1959 SC 855.

^[viii] 1981 ALL LJ 912.

^[ix] AIR 1965 SC 1951.

^[x] AIR 1975 SC 2299.

^[xi] AIR 1965 SC 183.

^[xii] AIR 1985 SC 236.

^[xiii] AIR 1996 SC 1113.

^[xiv] AIR 1979 SC 154.

^[xv] (1996) 1 SCC 169.

^[xvi] Supra note 13.

^[xvii] AIR 1994 SC 1918.

^[xviii] AIR 1980 SC 354.

^[xix] (1995) 5 SCC 123.

^[xx] AIR 1970 SC 522.

^[xxi] AIR 1970 SC 1231.

^[xxii] AIR 1970 SC 1500.

^[xxiii] AIR 1970 SC 1841.

^[xxiv] (1960) 22 ELR 358.

^[xxv] AIR 1965 SC 677.

^[xxvi] AIR 1971 SC 1943.

^[xxvii] AIR 1971 SC 1839.

^[xxviii] AIR 1962 SC 1156.

^[xxix] AIR 1969 SC 692.

^[xxx] AIR 1976 SC 1187.

^[xxxi] 20 ELR 37.

^[xxxii] AIR 1967 SC 836.

^[xxxiii] Supra note 10.

^[xxxiv] AIR 1975 SC 208.

^[xxxv] Supra note 10.

^[xxxvi] AIR 1990 SC 924.

^[xxxvii] AIR 1987 SC 1577.

^[xxxviii] AIR 1996 SC 1109.

^[xxxix] (2002) 5 SCC 294.

^[xl] (2013) 7 SCC 653.

^[xli] (2019) 3 SCC 224.

^[xlii] AIR 2020 SC 952.

---

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join: