Election Petition

What is an 'Election Petition'?

An election petition is the legal process to challenge the validity of an election. The Constitution of India under Article 329(b) prescribes that an election to either House of the Parliament or of a state legislature can be challenged in a manner provided by the law. Pursuant to the constitutional mandate, necessary provision for election petitions have been made under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

An election petition is the sole legal remedy available to a voter or candidate who believes there has been malpractice in an election to the Parliament, state legislature, or local government. To challenge the result, the individual must file an election petition with the High Court of the state where the constituency is located. This petition must be submitted within 45 days from the date of the poll results; courts will not entertain petitions filed after this period and these petitions shall ideally be disposed within the six months of filing.

Official Definition of 'Election Petition'

Article 329 of the Constitution of India, the bar to interference by courts in electoral matters.—Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution—

(b) no election to either House of Parliament or to the House or either House of the legislature of a State shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided for by or under any law made by the appropriate Legislature.

Section 80 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter, the RP Act), states that “no election shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with the provisions of Part VI of the Act, that deals with Disputes regarding Elections”

Legal Provisions under the Representation of the People Act, 1951

Jurisdiction

Section 80A designates the authority to try election petitions to the High Court. The jurisdiction is typically exercised by a single Judge of the High Court. The Chief Justice has the power to assign one or more Judges to handle election petitions. In High Courts with only one Judge, that Judge will try all election petitions. The High Court has the discretion to try an election petition, wholly or partially, at a location other than the seat of the High Court if it serves the interests of justice or convenience.

Procedure

Under Section 81, an election petition challenging an election can be presented to the High Court by any candidate or elector within forty-five days from the date of election of the returned candidate. A "returned candidate" is someone whose name has been published as a duly elected candidate. The term "elector" includes anyone entitled to vote at the election, whether they voted or not. The petition must be accompanied by as many copies as there are respondents mentioned, each attested by the petitioner as true copies.

The parties to be mandatorily involved in an election petition is delineated in Section 82. A petitioner must include all contesting candidates, except themselves if seeking a declaration that any returned candidate's election is void and simultaneously claiming another candidate's election. Alternatively, if solely seeking to void a returned candidate's election, all returned candidates must be included as respondents. Any candidate implicated in allegations of corrupt practices must also be joined as a respondent. This provision ensures comprehensive adjudication by involving all relevant parties in the electoral dispute resolution process under the RP Act.

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Joyti Basu and Others vs. Debi Ghosal and Others (Civil Appeal No. 1553 of 1980), delivered a significant judgment on the scope of parties in election petitions under the RP Act. In 1980, Mohammad Ismail, backed by the Communist Party of India (Marxist), won the parliamentary seat for 19-Barrackpore in West Bengal. Debi Ghosal, a rival candidate, filed an election petition alleging collusion and corrupt practices involving Ismail, Chief Minister Jyoti Basu, and two other West Bengal ministers. The High Court of Calcutta initially allowed Basu and the ministers to be joined as respondents in the petition, despite objections that they were not candidates in the election. Basu and the ministers appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that under the Representation of the People Act, only candidates could be respondents to an election petition. The Supreme Court upheld their appeal, ruling that according to Section 82 of the RP Act, only candidates could be joined as respondents in an election petition. The Court emphasized that the Act provided a specific framework for election disputes, restricting parties to those directly involved in the electoral process. It noted that allowing non-candidates to be joined as respondents could lead to misuse and unnecessary legal complications, undermining public officials' ability to perform their duties effectively. This decision clarified the legal standing under Indian election law, ensuring that election petitions focus solely on candidates and adhere strictly to statutory provisions.

Under Section 83, an election petition must contain a concise statement of material facts and full particulars of any corrupt practice alleged. It should include names, dates, and places relevant to the corrupt practices, be signed by the petitioner, and verified as per the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. If corrupt practices are alleged, the petition must be accompanied by an affidavit supporting these allegations and particulars.

Section 86 of the RP Act outlines the procedural framework for the trial of election petitions before the High Court:

1. Dismissal Criteria: The High Court shall dismiss any election petition that fails to comply with the procedural requirements specified in sections 81, 82, or 117 of the Act. Such dismissals are deemed as orders under section 98(a).
2. Assignment of Judge: Upon presentation, the election petition is promptly assigned to a Judge designated by the Chief Justice for election petition trials under section 80A(2).
3. Consolidation of Petitions: If multiple petitions arise from the same election, they are consolidated and tried together by the same Judge, who may choose to handle them separately or in groups.
4. Joining of Respondents: Any candidate not initially named as a respondent has the right to apply within fourteen days from the trial's commencement to be included, subject to the High Court's orders on costs.
5. Amendment of Allegations: The High Court may permit amendments to the particulars of alleged corrupt practices in the petition to ensure a fair trial, provided such amendments do not introduce new corrupt practices not previously alleged.
6. Trial Continuity: The trial of an election petition is to be conducted continuously from day to day, unless adjournment beyond the next day is necessary, with reasons recorded.
7. Trial Timeline: Every effort is made to conclude the trial within six months from the date the election petition is presented to the High Court, aiming for expeditious resolution.

Under Section 87, the trial of an election petition by the High Court should follow, as closely as possible, the procedure for the trial of suits under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court has the discretion to refuse to examine any witness if their evidence is not material to the decision of the petition or if it appears the witness is being presented frivolously or to delay proceedings. The provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, apply to the trial of election petitions.

Section 93 ensures that no document is inadmissible as evidence at the trial of an election petition due to lack of proper stamping or registration, overriding any contrary enactment.

Section 95 provides that a Witnesses cannot refuse to answer questions relevant to the trial of an election petition, even if the answers might incriminate them or expose them to penalties. Witnesses who answer truthfully are entitled to a certificate of indemnity, protecting their answers from being used against them in other proceedings, except for perjury.

Grounds to Declare Election Void

Section 100 enumerates several critical grounds upon which the High Court may declare an election void. These grounds include situations where, a candidate, at the time of election, was either not qualified or disqualified, instances of corrupt practices such as bribery or coercion committed by the candidate or their agents, improper rejection of valid nominations, and scenarios where the election's outcome was significantly affected by irregularities like improper acceptance or rejection of votes or violations of electoral laws. These provisions are essential safeguards to maintain the integrity and fairness of the electoral process, ensuring that elections uphold democratic principles and accurately reflect the electorate's choices. Each ground is meticulously defined to prevent electoral malpractice and uphold the sanctity of democratic elections under the rule of law.

Under Section 101 a petitioner can request a declaration that they or another candidate be duly elected if they received a majority of valid votes, or if, after excluding votes obtained by corrupt practices, they would have received the majority of valid votes. The High Court will declare the petitioner or the other candidate duly elected after declaring the election of the returned candidate void.

Corrupt Practices under RP Act

Section 123 intricately outlines what constitutes corrupt practices during electoral processes. It meticulously details acts such as bribery, where any form of inducement is offered to influence candidates or voters. It casts a critical eye on undue influence, encompassing threats or spiritual manipulation aimed at swaying electoral outcomes. The section vehemently prohibits appeals based on religion, caste, or language, and underscores the importance of fostering harmonious social dynamics rather than exacerbating divisions. Falsehoods disseminated about candidates, misuse of vehicles for transporting voters, illicit expenditures, and leveraging government officials for electoral gains are sternly denounced. The Act further unequivocally condemns booth capturing—where candidates or their agents unlawfully seize control of polling stations—as a grave offense against the democratic process. These provisions collectively uphold the sanctity of elections, ensuring they remain transparent, fair, and reflective of genuine voter intent, thereby safeguarding the democratic fabric of the nation.

Decision

At the conclusion of the trial, the High Court will make an order either dismissing the election petition, declaring the election of one or more returned candidates void, or declaring the election of one or more returned candidates void and declaring the petitioner or another candidate duly elected under Section 98.

Section 99 provides that when making an order under Section 98, the High Court must also record findings on any corrupt practices proved, name the individuals guilty, and specify costs. Persons not party to the petition can only be named if given notice and an opportunity to defend themselves.

Under Section 103 the High Court must inform the Election Commission and relevant parliamentary or legislative authorities of its decision as soon as possible after the trial. An authenticated copy of the decision must be sent to the Election Commission.

Section 106 provides that upon receiving an order under Section 98 or 99, the Election Commission must forward copies to the appropriate authorities and publish the order in the official gazettes of India and the relevant state.

HC Decides on Elected Candidates

The High Court is the designated authority, under Section 80A, to try election petitions and can make decisions regarding the validity of elected candidates. Under Section 100 the High Court can declare an election void on specified grounds, affecting the status of elected candidates. Further, under Section 101, the High Court can declare another candidate duly elected if they are found to have received the majority of valid votes or if corrupt votes are excluded.

In cases where there is a tie in votes between candidates during the trial of an election petition, Section 102 of the RP Act outlines the procedure to resolve this deadlock. Initially, any decision on the tie made by the returning officer under electoral laws will be considered binding for the petition's purposes. If the returning officer's decision does not resolve the tie completely, the High Court will then decide between the tied candidates by lots. This method effectively assigns an additional vote to one of the candidates, thereby determining the winner in accordance with electoral fairness and procedural integrity.

Void Returned Candidate

Under Section 98, the High Court can declare the election of one or more returned candidates void based on the findings from the election petition trial. Orders of the High Court declaring an election void take effect immediately, but actions and proceedings participated in by the returned candidate before the order remain valid under Section 107.

Withdrawal

Under Section 110 election petitions can be withdrawn only with the consent of all petitioners, and such applications require the High Court's approval. The High Court must ensure the withdrawal is not induced by improper considerations and may order cost payments and publish the withdrawal notice. If no substitution occurs after a withdrawal, the High Court reports the withdrawal to the Election Commission, which publishes the report in the Official Gazette under Section 111.

Appeal

Section 116A provides that appeals on High Court decisions under Sections 98 and 99 can be made to the Supreme Court on questions of law or fact. Appeals must be filed within thirty days of the High Court's order, with the Supreme Court having the discretion to allow appeals filed after this period if there is sufficient cause.

Stay

Under Section 116B applications can be made to the High Court for a stay of operation of its order under Sections 98 or 99 before the expiration of the appeal period. The Supreme Court can also stay the operation of such orders if an appeal is preferred. A stay order renders the High Court's order ineffective until further notice, and the stay must be communicated to the Election Commission and relevant parliamentary or legislative authorities.

Security for Costs

When a petitioner presents an election petition, they are required to deposit a sum of two thousand rupees as security for costs under Section 117. This provision is intended to ensure that the petitioner has a serious intent in pursuing the petition and to cover potential costs that may arise during the legal proceedings. The amount of two thousand rupees serves as an initial deposit, but the High Court retains the authority to demand additional security at any point during the trial if deemed necessary to cover anticipated costs.

Section 118 provides that Respondents who are joined in the election petition under Section 86 are also required to furnish security for costs as directed by the High Court. This ensures that all parties involved in the petition are financially accountable for their participation and potential costs incurred during the legal process. The amount of security required from respondents is determined by the High Court based on the circumstances of the case and the potential costs that may arise from their defense or involvement.

Costs

Under Section 119 the costs associated with the trial of an election petition are within the discretionary powers of the High Court. This includes determining which party or parties are liable for costs and the amount thereof. If an election petition is dismissed by the High Court, the returned candidate (or candidates) against whom the petition was filed may be entitled to recover their costs from the petitioner. This provision ensures that the costs incurred by parties in defending or pursuing an election petition are appropriately allocated based on the outcome of the legal proceedings. The High Court's discretion allows it to consider various factors in determining costs, including the conduct of the parties during the trial and the complexity of the issues involved.

Official Databases

NJDG

The National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) (High Courts of India) mentions data for election petitions for each High Court, bench, and year. The data is further classified into subject-matter, age, and institution v. disposal.

PENDING DASHBOARD

DISPOSED DASHBOARD

'Election Petition' as defined in case law(s)

An election petition, as defined by the RP Act, is the exclusive legal method to challenge election results. Article 329 of the Constitution prohibits any other form of proceedings to set aside an election. Thus, only an election petition, filed according to the prescribed manner and authority, is allowed for contesting election outcomes. In the case of Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque (1954) 2 SCC 881, it was held that, "on a plain reading of the article (Article 329 of the Constitution), what is prohibited therein is the initiation of proceedings for setting aside an election otherwise than by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as provided therein. A suit for setting aside an election would be barred under this provision."

An election petition is a legal mechanism provided under the RP Act, to challenge the validity of an election on specific grounds. It allows a voter or candidate to contest the election results if there are allegations of malpractice, such as the improper rejection of a nomination paper. The definition of "election" in this context can be interpreted broadly, covering the entire electoral process, or narrowly, focusing on the final selection of a candidate. This petition must be filed within a specified timeframe (45 days from the poll results), and only through this legal channel can an election be questioned. In the case of N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency (1952) 1 SCC 94, it was held that, “As we have seen, the most important question for determination is the meaning to be given to the word "election" in Article 329(b). That word has by long usage in connection with the process of selection of proper representatives in democratic institutions, acquired both a wide and a narrow meaning. In the narrow sense, it is used to mean the final selection of a candidate which may embrace the result of the poll when there is polling or a particular candidate being returned unopposed when there is no poll. In the wide sense, the word is used to connote the entire process culminating in a candidate being declared elected.”

"The next important question to be considered is what is meant by the words “no election shall be called in question”. A reference to any treatise on elections in England will show that an election proceeding in that country is liable to be assailed on very limited grounds, one of them being the improper rejection of a nomination paper. The law with which we are concerned is not materially different, and we find that in Section 100 of the RP Act, one of the grounds for declaring an election to be void is the improper rejection of a nomination paper."

Senthilbalaji V. v. A.P. Geetha, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 679 - “The consensus of judicial opinion is that the failure to plead material facts concerning alleged corrupt practice is fatal to the election petition. The material facts are the primary facts which must be proved on trial by a party to establish the existence of a cause of action.”

It was further said in the case that,  “Before we consider various paragraphs of the election petition to determine the correctness of the High Court order we think it necessary to bear in mind the nature of the right to elect, the right to be elected and the right to dispute election and the trial of the election petition. Right to contest election or to question the election by means of an election petition is neither common law nor fundamental right, instead it is a statutory right regulated by the statutory provisions of the Representation of People Act, 1951. There is no fundamental or common law right in these matters. This is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court in N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer [(1952) 1 SCC 94]”

“Section 83 lays down a mandatory provision providing that an election petition shall contain a concise statement of material facts and set forth full particulars of corrupt practice. The pleadings are regulated by Section 83 and it makes it obligatory on the  election petitioner to give the requisite facts, details and particulars of each corrupt practice with exactitude. If the election petition fails to make out a ground under Section 100 of the Act it must fail at the threshold. Allegations of corrupt practice are in the nature of criminal charges, it is necessary that there should be no vagueness in the allegations so that the returned candidate may know the case he has to meet. If the allegations are vague and general and the particulars of corrupt practice are not stated in the pleadings, the trial of the election petition cannot proceed for want of cause of action. The emphasis of law is to avoid a fishing and roving inquiry. It is therefore necessary for the Court to scrutinize the pleadings relating to corrupt practice in a strict manner.”

International Experiences

State laws in the United States vary significantly regarding who can request and challenge vote counts and file election contests, as well as the circumstances and timeframes for these actions. The laws specify who can request recounts, which often includes candidates, voters, or a designated number of voters within a specific jurisdiction. The grounds for requesting recounts commonly include a close vote margin, suspected errors in the count, or allegations of fraud or misconduct. States have specific deadlines by which recounts must be requested, often within a few days to a few weeks after the election. Similarly, the laws dictate who can file election contests, usually candidates or a specified number of voters, and the grounds for these contests might include fraud, errors, ineligible voters, or other irregularities affecting the outcome. Each state provides detailed procedures for filing and adjudicating election contests, including which courts or bodies have jurisdiction.

Candidates or electors must file a formal complaint or petition within the legal timeframe specified by the state. This typically requires presenting evidence of irregularities or violations of election laws that could have impacted the election outcome. Once the complaint is filed, it is reviewed by the appropriate electoral or judicial authority. If the complaint is deemed credible, an investigation may be initiated to verify the claims. This process can involve recounts, audits, and hearings where evidence is presented and examined. If the investigation confirms significant irregularities or violations, the authority may take actions such as ordering a recount, annulling the election results, or even calling for a new election. The specific remedies available depend on the laws and regulations of the jurisdiction in question.

The authors, Caroline Morris and Stuart Wilks-Heeg looked into “the Continuing Role and Relevance of Election Petitions in Challenging Election Results in the UK”, examining the main criticisms of the current election petition process which include legal and financial barriers facing petitioners, the inability of returning officers to initiate petitions, and the assumption that election challenges are a private concern rather than a matter of public interest. The process is often lengthy, with even straightforward counting errors taking two to three months to be officially recognized and corrected. The high legal costs incurred by petitioners, often in the tens of thousands of pounds, can be a significant deterrent. These criticisms have been highlighted by various reviews and proposals for reform, including those by the Electoral Commission and the Law Commission, which have called for a more streamlined and accessible process for addressing administrative errors and electoral offenses.

Research that engages with 'Election Petition'

Within the complex electoral framework of the country, a petition is the only instrument through which an adversely affected contesting candidate or a politically conscious voter can claim redress from the harm done to the conduct of free and fair elections. (Electoral Adjudication in India, EPW)

When an election petition is not concluded within the specified six-month period and is dismissed after the office's tenure is completed, it raises serious concerns. Delays render petitions pointless, leaving potential wrongdoing unaddressed and the elected individual unaccountable. This undermines the electoral process, erodes public trust, and highlights the need for timely resolution mechanisms. N. L. Rajah, in his article “Don’t dismiss those election petitions,” argues that instead of dismissing petitions as infructuous, the judiciary should take these cases to their logical end. He discusses the issue of election petitions often remaining unresolved beyond the term of office. The Representation of the People Act, 1951, mandates resolution within six months, but delays are common. Following the 2009 Lok Sabha elections, none of the 110 filed petitions were resolved within the stipulated time, and 25 were still pending after the five-year term. These delays lead to dismissals as infructuous, treating issues as no longer relevant. The author cites the Supreme Court's ruling in Sheodhan Singh vs. Mohan Gautam, which emphasized that election disputes are public concerns, not just private grievances. The Court highlighted that election petitions contest the integrity of the electoral process. Even if the petitioner loses interest, the court can continue proceedings with other parties. The author asserts that the judiciary should resolve these petitions to maintain electoral integrity, serving the public interest and preserving democratic processes.

While High Courts are designated as the authority to hear election petitions, their powers are circumscribed by the specific provisions of the Representation of the People Act and the Constitution. The article by S. Rahul and P.B.V. Nageswara Rao delves into the precise jurisdictional boundaries of High Courts in adjudicating election disputes under Article 329(b) of the Constitution and Section 80-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. It argues that while High Courts are designated as the authorities for hearing election petitions, their powers are strictly defined by legislative provisions rather than inherent judicial authority. The authors assert that the framework established by the RP Act, and Supreme Court rulings like N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, create a self-contained system for resolving election disputes. This system restricts High Courts from assuming rule-making powers beyond those expressly granted by statute. They emphasize that any rule-making by High Courts must derive from explicit legislative authorization, as seen in cases like Nawab Khan v. Vishwanath Shastri, where the court allowed High Courts to frame rules only when statutory provisions were silent. The authors caution against interpreting the designation of High Courts under Section 80-A as conferring blanket judicial or administrative powers, stressing that their role in election disputes is narrowly defined by the Representation of the People Act and constitutional provisions. They examined the implications of High Courts' jurisdiction to handle contempt matters during election petition trials, as established in T. Deen Dayal v. High Court of A.P. This precedent, while recognizing contempt powers, underscores the need for High Courts to exercise restraint within the confines of their designated roles under electoral laws. Conclusively, the article advocates for a strict adherence to statutory mandates and constitutional limitations in defining the High Courts' authority and jurisdiction in election dispute resolution.

The adjudication of election disputes by the Supreme Court of India stands at the intersection of legal scrutiny and democratic integrity. Central to this judicial role is the delicate balance between respecting lower court judgments and ensuring electoral fairness in cases fraught with allegations of corrupt practices. The article "Review of Facts by the Supreme Court in Election Cases: A Tale of Two Norms" examines this dual normative framework guiding the Supreme Court's approach to reviewing factual findings in election disputes. This examination is crucial as it navigates the court's adherence to legal finality while addressing the profound implications of electoral malpractice allegations on democratic processes.

While the Court typically upholds trial court judgments to ensure judicial continuity and efficiency, the article underscores the complexity of election cases, particularly those alleging corrupt practices. These cases, involving allegations that strike at the heart of democratic processes, demand a nuanced and vigilant approach from the judiciary. In ordinary circumstances, the Supreme Court refrains from re-evaluating factual findings made by lower courts unless there are glaring errors or procedural irregularities. This practice aims to maintain respect for trial courts' expertise in assessing witness credibility and evaluating evidence, thus promoting legal finality and judicial economy. However, when election disputes arise, especially those involving accusations of bribery, undue influence, or electoral malpractice, the stakes are high. The integrity of the electoral process and public trust in democratic institutions are directly impacted. In such contentious cases, the Supreme Court must balance the imperative of respecting trial court judgments with the duty to ensure electoral fairness and uphold the rule of law. This dualistic approach involves carefully scrutinizing whether the lower court's findings were based on a thorough and unbiased assessment of evidence. If there are substantial grounds to suspect a miscarriage of justice or a failure to consider crucial evidence, the Supreme Court intervenes to safeguard the electoral process's integrity. By adopting this balanced approach, the Supreme Court aims to reinforce public confidence in the judiciary's ability to adjudicate election disputes fairly and impartially. It acknowledges the gravity of electoral allegations and the need for thorough scrutiny while also recognizing the practical constraints and expertise of trial courts. This nuanced jurisprudence strikes a delicate balance between judicial restraint and judicial oversight, ensuring both legal certainty and electoral probity in the democratic framework.

Challenges and Recommendations as per Civil Society Reports or Government Reports

As per the recommendations by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), and National Election Watch (NEW), the time provided for filing election expenses by contesting candidates should be reduced to 20 days so that the time available for filing election petitions would increase to 25 days. There needs to be a legal sanction against losing candidates also for filing an election petition who are guilty of corrupt practice in terms of Section 123 of the RP Act, 1951.

As defined in gov reports

Election Petitions in India, filed under the RP Act, often face significant delays in the High Courts, sometimes rendering them ineffective as they remain unresolved until the term of the elected House expires. To address this issue, the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC) recommends the establishment of Special Election Tribunals under Article 323B of the Constitution. These tribunals, composed of a High Court Judge and a senior civil servant with extensive election experience, would ensure the speedy disposal of election petitions within six months. This dedicated judicial setup would alleviate the High Courts' burden, provide specialized expertise, and enhance the credibility and efficiency of the electoral justice system. Such tribunals, set up for one year with possible extensions in exceptional cases, would significantly improve the timely resolution of election disputes, reinforcing public confidence in the democratic process.

The current system of filing election petitions in India has several drawbacks: the non-uniform and formalistic procedure for presenting petitions, inordinate delays in trial, and a system of appeals that makes an appeal almost automatic. Firstly, the procedure varies among High Courts, causing inconsistencies, particularly in states with shared High Courts or multiple benches. Secondly, Section 82 requires petitioners to include all contesting candidates, even those with no realistic chance of being declared elected, wasting time and resources. Thirdly, Section 86 mandates summary dismissal for non-compliance with Section 117's security deposit requirements, despite such non-compliance not necessarily hindering the trial's progression. Fourthly, election petitions often face significant delays, as noted by the 4th ARC Report on Ethics, which can render the petitions ineffective by the time they are resolved. Amendments to Sections 80A, 82, 86, and 117 of the RP Act are suggested to address these issues, including raising the security deposit from Rs. 2000 to Rs. 10,000 to reflect inflation. The current system of handling election petitions in India suffers from severe delays and procedural inefficiencies. Instances like the dissolution of the 15th Lok Sabha in 2014 led to the dismissal of 25 pending petitions, some of which had been languishing for nearly five years despite statutory provisions for expeditious resolution. The process is marred by continuous adjournments, low prioritization by High Courts, and automatic appeals that further stall proceedings, exemplified by cases like Sushma Swaraj's and P. Veldurai's. These delays undermine the purpose of election petitions, eroding voter trust and rendering the right to challenge electoral outcomes ineffective. Recommendations include strict adherence to the six-month trial timeline mandated by the RP Act, establishment of dedicated "election benches" in High Courts, and amendments to limit appeals to the Supreme Court to ensure timely resolution. Introducing time limits for passing orders post-argument and reforming appeal procedures under Section 116A are crucial to expediting justice in electoral disputes and restoring faith in the democratic process.