Representation of the People Act, 1951: Key Provisions, Supreme Court Verdicts & Election Transparency in India

Introduction

In a crucial decision that upholds the integrity of the democratic mandate, the Supreme Court in Ajmera Shyam v. Smt. Kova Laxmi & Others (2025) chose not to intervene in the election of BRS MLA Kova Laxmi from the Asifabad constituency. The bench, which included Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh, determined that small oversights in asset declarations do not qualify as corrupt practices under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA), unless they are significant in nature. The ruling points out that courts should not invalidate election results over trivial technicalities unless the process's validity is clearly undermined.

Supreme Court of India reinforcing electoral integrity under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Overview of the Case:

The disagreement originated from the election of the Telangana Legislative Assembly, 2023 during which the elected person was Kova Laxmi of the (BRS) - Bharat Rashtra Samithi from the Asifabad constituency. Her election affidavit consisted of her assets, PAN, debts and revenue sources, which comprised her honorarium as a chairperson of ZP – Zilla Parishad. Nevertheless, her earnings were shown only in 2022-2023 returns, and her tax filings for 2018-2022 were “Nil”.

Congress candidate Ajmera Shyam contested her election, claiming that the lack of income details breached the disclosure obligations outlined in Form 26 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. He claimed that this constituted inappropriate acceptance of nomination and unethical conduct according to Sections 100 and 123 of the RPA. The petition was rejected by the Telangana High Court, leading to an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court’s Observations:

The Apex Court made a definite distinction between significant flaws and minor technical violations. It determined that the claimed non-disclosure was not significant and thus did not amount to corrupt practice under Section 123(2) of the RPA. Justice N Kotiswar Singh highlighted that even though Rule 4A requires the disclosure of IT returns, failing to disclose them does not automatically warrant the invalidation of an election unless it significantly influences the result or indicates fraudulent motives.

The Court warned against an overly meticulous and precise method for handling election petitions, asserting:

“Just because a candidate who has returned has not provided specific details about assets, courts should not hastily deem the election invalid.”

Citing Lok Prahari v. Union of India & Ors. In 2018, the Court emphasised that although non-disclosure may be considered a corrupt practice, the context and outcome are crucial. The real measure, it argued, is if the omission is significant or trivial.

Voter’s Right vs. Liberal Mandate

The electorate’s right to information and the electoral authority were smoothly balanced in the ruling. Candidates have understood the constitutional duty to disclose their history, but they are still stressed about the fact that this must be in line with the public demands shown via votes.

The bench warned

“To nullify the choice of the people on a minor technicality and insignificant non-disclosure of assets would have serious repercussions on the democratic process.”

Courts, it said, must not become instruments to overturn election results through cold, clinical legal analysis, unless the concealment materially affects the outcome or reveals corrupt practices.

Asset Disclosure Requirements in Elections

Asset disclosure norms were introduced to enhance transparency and enable informed voting. By Rule 4A of the Conduct of Election Rule, 1961, it is mandatory for the candidates to submit Form 26 affidavits disclosing the following:

• Movable assets and Non-movable assets

• Responsibilities

• Qualifications

• Prior Criminal

• Past 5 years Tax Return

The main motive is to restrict those people from the electoral process who attain extreme or secret wealth.

Legal Regulation: The Representation of the People Act, 1951

The Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA) forms the backbone of India’s electoral framework, ensuring that elections are conducted in a free, fair, and unbiased manner. Several key provisions of the Act play a crucial role in safeguarding the integrity of the electoral process:

• Section 100(1)(b): Empowers courts to declare elections void if corrupt practices are established.

• Section 123: Defines corrupt practices, including bribery, undue influence, and dissemination of false statements.

• Section 8: Disqualifies candidates with certain criminal convictions from contesting elections.

• Section 29A: Governs the registration of political parties with the Election Commission.

• Sections 126 & 126A: Regulate media coverage and broadcasting during the election period to prevent undue influence on voters.

The Act, therefore, serves as a cornerstone in maintaining the credibility and transparency of India’s democratic process.

Way forward:

The Apex Court’s verdict in Ajmera Shyam v. Kova Laxmi demonstrates the value of judicial limitations in electoral concerns. While simplicity, transparency and responsibility are still vital, the Court appropriately highlighted that minor administrative errors should not prevail over the popular mandate. The ruling affirms the notion that republicanism relies not on technical flawlessness, but on the solid will of the citizens.

FAQ

Q1. What is the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and why is it important?

A: The Representation of the People Act, 1951 lays down the framework for conducting elections in India, covering candidate eligibility, corrupt practices, and party registration.

Q2. Can elections be cancelled for non-disclosure of assets under the Representation of the People Act?

A: Yes, but only if the omission is significant and affects the outcome. Minor or trivial non-disclosures usually don’t amount to corrupt practices.

Q3. What are corrupt practices under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act?A: Corrupt practices include bribery, undue influence, false statements, and misuse of government machinery during elections.

Q4. What role did the Supreme Court play in the 2025 Ajmera Shyam v. Kova Laxmi case?

A: The Court held that minor errors in asset disclosure don’t invalidate elections unless they materially affect the mandate or reveal fraud.

Empower Your Legal Practice with AI – Join Our Free Webinar!

Are you a legal professional looking to boost your efficiency and stay ahead in a competitive field? Discover the power of Lawttorney.AI – the cutting-edge tool designed to streamline legal research, automate tasks, and enhance productivity.

👉 Don't miss out! Reserve your spot in our FREE webinar and experience the future of legal practice today. Register Now