Election disputes in India are governed by a self-contained statutory code. Examine how strict limitation periods balance electoral finality against access to justice.

Article 329(b) says an election can be questioned only through an election petition (EP) under a law made by the legislature [1]. The Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951 is that law, and Section 81 requires an EP within 45 days of the returned candidate's election [2]. A strict time limit protects the stability of the mandate, but it does so at some cost to access to justice.

A self-contained code

• Section 80 allows elections to be questioned only by an EP. Section 80A makes the High Court the forum [2].
• Section 86(1) requires the High Court to dismiss an EP that does not comply with Section 81 [2].
• The Supreme Court has held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which lets courts excuse delay, cannot extend the Section 81 period (Hukumdev Narain Yadav, 1974) [3].

How strict limits secure finality

• A stable mandate: legislators and governments are not left facing lawsuits with no end date.
• Filtering at the threshold: a time-barred petition is rejected without a trial. For example, the EP against Udhayanidhi Stalin (Chepauk-Thiruvallikeni) was filed by a candidate who polled 30 votes, and it now faces a time-bar plea [4].
• Fresh evidence: disputes are raised while records and witnesses are still available.

Where access to justice suffers

• One-day technicalities: Udhayanidhi was declared elected on 4 May 2026. His counsel says the deadline was 17 June, and the EP was filed on 18 June [4]. If the first day is excluded under the General Clauses Act, 1897, the petition is in time. The case therefore turns on how the days are counted [4].
• No power to excuse delay: even a genuine reason for filing late cannot save the petition.
• Fast filing, slow trial: Section 86(7) aims for trial within six months [2], yet trials often run on until the term is nearly over. The Law Commission's 255th Report examined these delays [5].

Way forward

• Amend the law to state clearly how the 45 days are counted, so that cases do not turn on interpretation.
• Set up dedicated election benches so that the six-month target is actually met.
• Make the ECI release nomination records quickly, so petitioners can file within the limit.

Strict limitation periods remain essential to keeping the people's mandate final. However, finality is legitimate only if petitions that are filed in time are heard quickly and on their merits. Clear counting rules and time-bound trials, as the Law Commission has urged, would reconcile Article 329's finality with the constitutional promise of free and fair elections.