A seven-judge Constitution Bench, by 4:3, read the word 'his' in section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 broadly. An appeal for votes on the ground of religion, race, caste, community or language — of the candidate, his agent, the rival, or the voter — is a corrupt practice. The dissent would have confined 'his' to the candidate.
On 5 February 2015 a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court — Dipak Misra and Prafulla Pant JJ., the principal opinion authored by Dipak Misra J. — held that a candidate's non-disclosure of pending criminal cases in the Form 26 nomination affidavit, where charges have been framed or cognizance has been taken, amounts to 'undue influence' within Section 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act 1951 and is therefore a corrupt practice rendering the election liable to be set aside under Section 100(1)(b). The judgment elevates ECI Form 26 disclosure to constitutional and statutory significance and extends the framework to local-body elections.