Disobedience of Section 83(1)(a) of RP Act, 1951

Posted on by Rudrajyoti Nath Ray

A ‘corrupt practice’ is easy to level but difficult to prove. No allegation would fall within definition of ‘corrupt practice’ of ‘undue influence’ as envisaged in Section 123(2) of The Representation of the People Act, 1951. Election Petition No. 01 of 2021 of Aminul Haque Laskar against Karim Uddin Barbhuiya also lacks ‘concise statement’ of ‘material facts’. An omission of a single ‘material fact’ would lead to an ‘incomplete’ cause of action and would amount to ‘disobedience’ of Section 83(1)(a) of The Representation of the People Act, 1951 [Azhar Hussain vs. Rajiv Gandhi, (1986) Supp. SCC 315]. Appeal allowed.

– Hon’ble Justice Bela M. Trivedi, Karim Uddin Barbhuiya v. Aminul Haque Laskar, [Civil Appeal No. 6282 of 2023].

'The Last Word' seeks to include not only wise and witty sayings but also curiosities. These words are not of obligation but of delight. I am not alone in my refusal to believe, law is tedious. For all who escaped these percipient eyes, mea culpa maxima. History, after all, has many cunning passages, contrived corridors and issues.