Not Maintaining Proper Accounts Of Election Expenditure Not 'Corrupt Practice' Under RP Act: Delhi HC Rejects Plea Against AAP Candidate

The Delhi High Court has ruled that a candidate not maintaining proper accounts of election expenditure or not accurately disclosing the expenditure undertaken by him does not constitute “corrupt practice” under Section 123 of Representation of People Act, 1951.

Justice Mini Pushkarna dismissed the election petition filed by one Ramesh Kumar Khatri challenging the victory of AAP candidate Durgesh Pathak in the Delhi Assembly by-election, 2022, from Rajendra Nagar assembly constituency.

Khatri prayed that Pathak be debarred from contesting Assembly Elections for six years as per Section 8(A) of the RP Act. It was Khatri's case that Pathak had shown fabricated expenses in the day-to-day expenditure register.

Khatri alleged that Pathak failed to lodge true accounts of his expenditure incurred on refreshment, hoarding, banners, pamphlets, brooms, etc. in his election expenditure register.

Dismissing the plea, the Court said that even if the allegations made by Khatri were taken to be prima facie correct, they would not constitute a ground for countermanding Pathak's election under Section 100(1)(b) of the RP Act.

“Even if the allegations made in the petition regarding not maintaining proper account is established, that would still not amount to constituting a corrupt practice, in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the petition does not disclose any cause of action,” the Court said.

It added that every contravention of Section 77 of the RP Act, which mandates every candidate to keep a separate and correct account of all election expenditure, does not constitute a corrupt practice.

The Court said that there was no averment in Khatri's election petition that Pathak had spent an amount exceeding the prescribed limit for election or that the result of the election was materially affected by the latter's failure to give true and correct accounts of the expenditure.

“The only allegations that have been made in the election petition, are pertaining to improper maintenance of accounts by the respondent, which as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court, does not fall within the scope of „corrupt practice‟ as defined in Section 123(6) of the 1951 Act. The present application is allowed and the petition is rejected, in terms of Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of CPC,” the Court said.

Justice Pushkarna also dismissed another election petition filed by one Mohinder Singh challenging Pathak's victory in the polls in question. 

Singh had filed the plea on the grounds that Pathak had filed a deficient nomination affidavit by concealing the name of his spouse. It was Singh's case that no action was taken by the returning officer, despite multiple complaints made by him.

Singh also alleged that he had received a video in 2022 through WhatsApp in which children were seen distributing election campaigning pamphlets of Pathak at daily wages of Rs. 100 per day.

Rejecting the plea, the Court noted that in the column against name of the spouse in the nomination affidavit, Pathak had written “not applicable.”

The Court said there was no material particular on record to suggest that any information was suppressed by Pathak.

“Merely stating that the respondent no.1 has concealed the fact by not mentioning the name of his spouse in the nomination form, does not give rise to any cause of action, when, perusal of the said form shows that the respondent no.1 has duly stated, 'not applicable', in the column regarding name of the spouse,” the Court said.

It added that there were no particulars regarding the date or time or place where the children were allegedly seen distributing the pamphlets of Pathak. The pleading of the petitioner in this regard is totally silent qua material particulars and fails to disclose a cause of action, the Court said.

Title: RAMESH KUMAR KHATRI v. DURGESH PATHAK and other connected matter

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 144

Click here to read order