1996 (3) TMI 530 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved:
The writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeks reconsideration of a previous judgment, claiming it to be incorrect.

Reconsideration of Judgment:
The Supreme Court clarified that Article 32 is not available to challenge the correctness of a decision on merits or to seek its reconsideration. This principle was reiterated in a recent decision, emphasizing that the writ petition is not maintainable for such purposes.

Interpretation of Statutory Provisions:
The Court highlighted that a previous decision did not pertain to the specific provisions in question, emphasizing that it is irrelevant for interpreting the relevant sections of the Representation of the People Act. The challenge to the correctness of the previous decision was deemed to be based on a misreading, with the Court explaining the legal basis for its decision.

Standard of Proof for Corrupt Practices:
The Court emphasized the importance of legal evidence and the standard of proof required to establish a corrupt practice. It was noted that the allegations in the case lacked sufficient legal evidence to prove the corrupt practice as alleged.

Misuse of Religion in Elections:
The Court addressed concerns regarding the potential misuse of religion for electoral gains, emphasizing that the judgment in question does not enable such misuse. References to other cases were made to illustrate that the judgment does not conflict with the concept of secularism or allow for the misuse of religion in election appeals.

Legislative Cure for Deficiencies:
The Court highlighted that any deficiencies in the statutory provisions regarding corrupt practices during elections must be addressed through legislation. It was noted that attempts to introduce provisions to prevent the misuse of religion during elections were abandoned, emphasizing the need for legislative action to address such issues.

Conclusion:
The writ petition seeking reconsideration of the judgment was dismissed by the Court, with a clear explanation provided regarding the legal basis for the decision and the lack of merit in the petitioner's contentions.