Critically analyse the role of High Courts in deciding election petitions. Suggest reforms to ensure these petitions are disposed of in time.

Under Article 329(b), an election can be challenged only through an election petition. Section 80A of the Representation of the People (RP) Act, 1951 gives the trial of these petitions to High Courts [2]. High Courts therefore guard the fairness of elections, but delays often weaken their verdicts.

Role of High Courts: Strengths

• Independent forum: judges, free from party and executive pressure, decide under Section 100 whether an election is void [2].
• Checking corrupt practices: they test claims of bribery and undue influence (Section 123(2)), including false affidavits, against the voter's right to know [2].
• Filter against frivolous cases: in Karim Uddin Barbhuiya (2024), the Supreme Court held that petitions must plead precise material facts, so vague petitions are thrown out [3].
• Current example: the Madras HC is examining the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister's asset declaration of over ₹600 crore in the Perambur election petition [1].

Role of High Courts: Weaknesses

• Chronic delay: Section 86(7) asks courts to try to finish the trial within six months, but this is only a target [2]. Petitions often outlast the House's term.
• Heavy caseload: a single judge hears these petitions along with regular cases, and there are no dedicated benches.
• Technical process: because each petition is a full civil trial, the result often depends on how well the case is pleaded, not on whether the affidavit was true [3].
• Uncertainty: a pending petition against a sitting Chief Minister clouds governance [1].
• Split remedies: a false Form 26 affidavit is a separate criminal offence under Section 125A, and the ECI sends such complaints to the courts [5].

Reforms for Timely Disposal

• Dedicated election benches with day-to-day hearings, and a binding six-month limit under Section 86(7) that the Chief Justice monitors.
• Earlier scrutiny: a one-week gap between the last date for nominations and scrutiny, so objections are settled before polling (Law Commission, 244th Report) [4].
• Clearer law: make filing a false affidavit a corrupt practice and a ground for disqualification [4]. This would end disputes over which section applies.
• Early rejection of defective petitions under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC [3].
• Technology: e-filing, and video-recorded evidence taken by court-appointed commissioners.

High Courts give election disputes fair and independent judgment, but a verdict that comes after the term ends defeats the mandate it was meant to protect. Dedicated benches, binding timelines and the Law Commission's reforms would make the election petition under Article 329(b) a promise of verdicts that are both clean and timely.