Can the finding that an unpaid village officer acted as a polling agent be challenged through a revision petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court?

Sources
Source Judgment: Read judgment
Case Analysis: Read case analysis

Suppose a municipal election is held in a semi‑urban constituency where the incumbent candidate is challenged by a rival who files an election petition alleging that a local village officer, appointed by the District Magistrate, acted as a polling agent and also canvassed on behalf of the incumbent, thereby committing a major corrupt practice under the Representation of the People Act.

The election tribunal, after hearing the complainant, records that the village officer was listed in the official register of village heads maintained by the district administration and was therefore “serving under the Government of the State.” Relying on the explanatory clause to the provision on major corrupt practices, the tribunal declares the election void and orders that the incumbent be disqualified from holding the seat.

The incumbent, now designated as the accused, contends that the village officer was an unpaid community representative and not a government servant, arguing that the tribunal erred in expanding the statutory definition to include an unpaid functionary. The accused maintains that the factual defence—showing the officer’s lack of salary—should suffice to overturn the finding of a corrupt practice.

However, the legal problem extends beyond the factual defence. The core issue is whether the statutory interpretation of “serving under the Government” embraces any person appointed by a State authority, irrespective of remuneration, and whether the officer’s dual role as polling agent and canvasser automatically triggers the consequence of a major corrupt practice that renders the election void.

Because the tribunal’s order is an interlocutory decision of a subordinate election authority, the appropriate procedural route to challenge it is a revision petition under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. The revision must be filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which has jurisdiction to entertain revisions against orders of election tribunals and other subordinate authorities.

The accused therefore engages a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court to draft a revision petition that specifically questions the tribunal’s construction of the statutory language, cites the Supreme Court’s earlier pronouncement on the same provision, and seeks a reversal of the void‑election order.

In the revision petition, the petitioner argues that the tribunal failed to apply the test of “service under the Government” correctly, ignoring the requirement that the officer must be a salaried employee of the State. The petition also points out that the officer’s canvassing was limited to a single polling station and did not influence the overall result, thereby challenging the materiality of the alleged corrupt practice.

The petition further requests that the High Court exercise its supervisory jurisdiction to set aside the tribunal’s order, restore the incumbent’s right to hold the elected office, and award costs for the unnecessary litigation. It also seeks a direction that any future determination of “government servant” status be made on a strict salary‑based criterion, to prevent similar disputes.

Lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court are aware that the High Court can entertain such a revision only if the order of the tribunal is shown to be erroneous in law or manifestly erroneous in fact. Accordingly, the revision petition is meticulously framed to demonstrate that the tribunal’s legal reasoning is flawed, not merely that the factual findings are disputed.

The procedural advantage of filing a revision before the High Court, rather than pursuing a fresh election petition, lies in the fact that the revision directly attacks the tribunal’s order without reopening the entire election dispute. This route also allows the accused to obtain a quicker remedy, as the High Court can decide the matter on points of law without the need for a full evidentiary hearing.

Upon receipt of the revision petition, the Punjab and Haryana High Court issues a notice to the complainant and the investigating agency, inviting them to file their responses. The court then schedules a hearing where the parties may present legal arguments, statutory interpretations, and precedents, including the Supreme Court’s earlier decision that a village headman, irrespective of salary, falls within the definition of a government servant for the purpose of major corrupt practices.

If the High Court is persuaded that the tribunal misapplied the statutory definition, it may quash the void‑election order, thereby reinstating the accused’s election victory. Conversely, if the court upholds the tribunal’s interpretation, the election remains void and a fresh election may be ordered.

The entire procedural strategy underscores why the remedy lay before the Punjab and Haryana High Court: the High Court’s jurisdiction over revisions of subordinate tribunal orders, its power to interpret statutory language, and its ability to provide an expeditious resolution to the electoral dispute.

Thus, the fictional scenario mirrors the legal character of the analysed judgment, presenting a comparable factual matrix, a similar evidentiary issue concerning the status of a village officer, and the same procedural remedy—filing a revision petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court—to obtain the appropriate relief.

Question: Does the election tribunal’s construction of “serving under the Government” to include an unpaid village officer appointed by the District Magistrate accord with the statutory intent, and what legal principles guide the interpretation of that phrase in the context of major corrupt practices?

Answer: The tribunal’s construction hinges on the explanatory clause that expands “serving under the Government” to embrace a village headman or any other village officer, “by whatever name he is called.” The factual matrix shows that the village officer, though unpaid, was appointed under the authority of the District Magistrate and entered in the official register of village heads maintained by the district administration. The legal principle of purposive interpretation requires the court to look beyond the literal meaning of “service” and consider the legislative purpose of preventing state‑backed influence in elections. The Supreme Court’s earlier pronouncement in a similar dispute held that the decisive factor is the official appointment by a State authority, not the receipt of salary. Consequently, the tribunal’s view aligns with that precedent, treating the officer as a de‑facto government servant for the purpose of the corrupt‑practice provision. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court would argue that the statutory scheme deliberately includes unpaid functionaries to close a loophole whereby political actors could exploit nominally independent village officers. The interpretation also respects the principle of “lex specialis” – the specific explanatory clause overrides any general definition of government service. However, the tribunal must ensure that the officer’s appointment satisfies the statutory criteria, such as being made under the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and recorded in the official register. If the appointment were informal or merely customary, the inclusion might be contested. In the present case, the factual record of appointment and registration supports the tribunal’s reading, making the construction legally defensible. Nonetheless, the defence could challenge the breadth of the clause, contending that remuneration is an essential indicator of a servant relationship, thereby urging a narrower construction. The High Court, when reviewing, will balance the textual literalism against the purposive intent, and the presence of a clear explanatory clause generally tips the scale toward the tribunal’s interpretation, especially when supported by prior Supreme Court authority.

Question: In what manner does the dual role of the village officer as both polling agent and canvasser satisfy the elements of a major corrupt practice, and does the limited scope of his canvassing at a single polling station affect the materiality of the alleged offence?

Answer: The statutory definition of a major corrupt practice includes the act of a person “serving under the Government” who, as a polling agent, canvasses for a candidate. The factual record indicates that the village officer performed both functions: he was formally appointed as the candidate’s polling agent and, during the polling day, approached voters at one polling station to solicit votes. The legal analysis focuses on two elements: the status of the person as a government servant and the act of canvassing while acting as a polling agent. The officer’s appointment, as established, satisfies the first element. The second element is satisfied if the canvassing was undertaken in the capacity of a polling agent, irrespective of the number of voters approached. Lawyers in Chandigarh High Court would argue that the statute does not require a quantitative threshold of influence; the mere act of canvassing by a government servant in the official capacity of a polling agent triggers the major corrupt practice. The defence may contend that the limited scope—only one polling station and a negligible number of voters—renders the act immaterial to the overall election result, invoking the principle that a corrupt practice must have a material effect on the outcome. However, jurisprudence holds that materiality is assessed on the statutory language, not on the magnitude of the influence. The Supreme Court has previously ruled that any act falling within the statutory description, even if isolated, suffices to invoke the consequence of voiding the election. The High Court will therefore examine whether the officer’s conduct fits the statutory description, not whether it altered the vote count. If the court accepts that the officer’s dual role meets the statutory criteria, the limited canvassing will not diminish the offence. Conversely, if the court finds that the officer’s canvassing was incidental and not in the capacity of a polling agent, the element may be broken, potentially averting the declaration of a major corrupt practice. The factual defence must therefore demonstrate a clear separation between the officer’s polling‑agent duties and any informal canvassing, a nuanced argument that lawyers in Chandigarh High Court will craft to mitigate the statutory consequences.

Question: What are the procedural requisites and strategic considerations for filing a revision petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court to challenge the election tribunal’s interlocutory order, and how does this remedy differ from a fresh election petition?

Answer: A revision petition under the Criminal Procedure Code is the appropriate procedural vehicle to contest an interlocutory order of a subordinate authority such as an election tribunal. The petition must be filed within the period prescribed by law, typically within thirty days of the receipt of the tribunal’s order, and must clearly articulate that the order is erroneous in law or manifestly erroneous in fact. The petitioner, the accused, must engage a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court to draft a concise memorandum of revision, setting out the legal errors—namely, the misinterpretation of “serving under the Government” and the improper application of the major corrupt practice provision. The petition should attach the tribunal’s order, the FIR (if any), the register of village heads, and any affidavits proving the officer’s unpaid status. Strategic considerations include focusing on points of law rather than re‑litigating factual disputes, because the High Court’s jurisdiction in revision is limited to correcting legal mistakes. The petitioner must also anticipate the prosecution’s likely argument that the tribunal’s findings are supported by the evidentiary record, and therefore the High Court should defer to the tribunal’s factual findings. By contrast, a fresh election petition would reopen the entire election dispute, requiring a full evidentiary hearing on both factual and legal issues, and would be more time‑consuming and costly. The revision route offers a quicker, more focused remedy, allowing the High Court to decide the case on statutory interpretation alone. Moreover, the High Court can quash the tribunal’s order if it finds a legal error, thereby restoring the accused’s election victory without ordering a fresh poll. The petitioner must also be prepared for the possibility of the High Court remanding the matter back to the tribunal for reconsideration if it finds a mixed error of law and fact. Engaging experienced lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court ensures that the revision petition complies with procedural formalities, presents persuasive legal arguments, and anticipates procedural objections, thereby maximizing the chance of a favorable outcome.

Question: If the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashes the tribunal’s void‑election order, what are the practical ramifications for the accused’s political standing, the complainant’s relief, and the broader electoral process in the constituency?

Answer: A quashing of the tribunal’s order by the Punjab and Haryana High Court would have immediate and far‑reaching consequences. For the accused, the most direct effect is the restoration of his status as the duly elected representative, allowing him to resume legislative duties, claim any accrued salaries, and exercise constituency privileges. This reinstatement also bolsters his political credibility, signaling that the legal challenge succeeded and that the allegations of corrupt practice were not sustained. The complainant, who sought disqualification and a fresh election, would be left without the specific relief of voiding the election; however, the High Court may award costs, which could partially compensate the complainant for litigation expenses. The broader electoral process would be impacted by the precedent set regarding the definition of “serving under the Government.” A judgment that narrows the scope of the statutory definition could deter future candidates from employing unpaid village officers in similar capacities, thereby influencing campaign strategies. Conversely, if the High Court upholds the tribunal’s interpretation, the constituency would face a fresh election, leading to administrative costs, voter fatigue, and potential political instability. The decision also sends a signal to election officials about the rigor of compliance with the Representation of the People Act, encouraging stricter adherence to procedural norms. Lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court would advise the accused to promptly file for restoration of his seat, seek interim relief to prevent any administrative actions that might affect his tenure, and possibly pursue a declaration of costs against the complainant. The political parties involved would need to reassess their candidate selection and campaign practices to avoid similar disputes. Overall, the High Court’s ruling shapes both the immediate political landscape and the longer‑term conduct of elections in the semi‑urban constituency, reinforcing the importance of precise statutory interpretation in electoral law.

Question: How does the evidential burden shift in a revision petition that challenges a statutory interpretation, and what evidentiary strategies should the accused employ to persuade the Punjab and Haryana High Court that the tribunal’s legal reasoning was flawed?

Answer: In a revision petition, the burden of proof concerning factual matters remains with the party that raised those facts before the tribunal, but the burden of establishing a legal error shifts to the petitioner, the accused, who must demonstrate that the tribunal misapplied the law. The accused must therefore focus on showing that the statutory construction of “serving under the Government” was erroneous, rather than re‑proving the officer’s unpaid status. The evidentiary strategy involves submitting documentary evidence—such as the register of village heads, the appointment order, and salary records—to illustrate that the officer’s role was purely honorary and lacked the attributes of a salaried government servant. Additionally, the accused should cite authoritative case law, particularly the Supreme Court’s decision that emphasized the appointment’s formal nature over remuneration, to bolster the argument that the tribunal’s broader reading is inconsistent with precedent. Lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court would also recommend filing affidavits from administrative officials confirming the officer’s unpaid status and the absence of any statutory requirement for remuneration in the definition of a government servant. The petitioner may further argue that the tribunal’s reliance on the explanatory clause was misplaced because the clause was intended for a different context, and that a purposive reading of the statute should limit the definition to those who receive a salary, thereby preventing an over‑broad application that could criminalize routine community participation. By focusing on legal authorities, legislative intent, and the specific administrative facts, the accused can persuade the High Court that the tribunal’s legal reasoning was flawed. The High Court, in reviewing, will assess whether the tribunal’s interpretation was a permissible construction of the statute or a manifest error of law. If the court finds the latter, it will set aside the order, regardless of the factual findings, underscoring the pivotal role of precise statutory interpretation in revision proceedings.

Question: Why does the procedural route require filing a revision petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court rather than pursuing a fresh election petition or an appeal under a different statute?

Answer: The factual matrix shows that the election tribunal, a subordinate authority created under the electoral law, issued an interlocutory order declaring the election void on the ground of a major corrupt practice. That order is not a final judgment of a criminal trial but a determination of a statutory question concerning the definition of “serving under the Government.” Under the hierarchy of courts, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana possesses supervisory jurisdiction over orders of subordinate tribunals, including election tribunals, through the revision mechanism provided in the procedural code. This jurisdiction is distinct from the appellate route that would require a final judgment of a criminal court; the tribunal’s order is reviewable only by revision because it is not an appealable decree but a quasi‑judicial decision. By filing a revision, the accused can directly challenge the legal reasoning of the tribunal without reopening the entire electoral dispute, thereby saving time and resources. The High Court’s power to interpret statutory language allows it to examine whether the tribunal correctly applied the explanatory clause that expands “serving under the Government” to include any person appointed by a State authority, irrespective of remuneration. Moreover, the revision route is appropriate because the accused seeks a quashing of the void‑election order, not a re‑election or a criminal conviction. The procedural advantage lies in the High Court’s ability to decide the matter on points of law alone, without a full evidentiary hearing, which is essential when the factual defence of unpaid status is insufficient. Engaging a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court ensures that the revision petition is drafted to highlight the legal error, cite precedent, and request the supervisory writ jurisdiction to set aside the tribunal’s order, thereby aligning the remedy with the correct forum and procedural posture.

Question: In what way does the factual defence that the village officer was unpaid fail to overturn the tribunal’s finding at the revision stage, and why must the accused rely on a legal argument instead?

Answer: The tribunal’s decision rested on a statutory construction rather than on a pure factual determination. While the accused can produce evidence showing that the village officer received no salary, the legal question before the High Court is whether the statutory definition of “serving under the Government” incorporates the criterion of remuneration. The explanatory clause of the relevant electoral provision expressly states that the phrase embraces any village officer appointed by a State authority, regardless of whether the officer is salaried. Consequently, the factual defence of unpaid status does not alter the legal meaning of the term. At the revision stage, the High Court does not re‑examine the evidence of salary; instead, it scrutinises whether the tribunal applied the correct legal test. The accused must therefore frame the argument that the tribunal erred in expanding the definition beyond the intended scope of the statute, perhaps by contending that the legislative intent was to limit “serving under the Government” to those who are in the payroll of the State. This legal argument is essential because the revision remedy is premised on correcting an error of law or a manifest error of fact, not merely on presenting additional factual material. Moreover, the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction allows it to set aside the order if it finds that the tribunal’s legal reasoning was flawed, even if the factual matrix remains unchanged. By focusing on the statutory interpretation, the accused can demonstrate that the tribunal’s conclusion was legally untenable, thereby providing a stronger basis for quashing the void‑election order. The reliance on a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court becomes crucial to articulate this nuanced legal position, draft precise submissions, and cite authoritative case law that supports a narrower reading of the statutory language.

Question: Why might the accused actively search for a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court when preparing to file the revision petition, and what practical considerations influence this choice?

Answer: The Punjab and Haryana High Court sits in Chandigarh, making the city the natural venue for any High Court proceedings arising from the state’s jurisdiction. An accused seeking to challenge the tribunal’s order will therefore look for a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court who is familiar with the local court’s procedural habits, the registry’s filing timelines, and the judges who regularly hear election‑related revisions. Practical considerations include the ease of personal attendance at hearings, the ability to file documents electronically through the court’s e‑filing portal, and the proximity to the court’s clerks who can provide guidance on procedural compliance. Additionally, a lawyer based in Chandigarh is likely to have established relationships with the bar association and may possess recent experience with similar revision petitions involving electoral statutes, which can be invaluable for tailoring arguments that resonate with the bench. The accused may also consider the cost implications; engaging a local practitioner can reduce travel expenses and facilitate quicker communication. Moreover, the High Court’s procedural rules often require physical presence for certain stages, such as the filing of a memorandum of arguments or the attendance at a preliminary hearing, making a Chandigarh‑based counsel advantageous. By retaining a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court, the accused ensures that the revision petition is filed in strict compliance with the court’s procedural requirements, that any notices are promptly addressed, and that the case proceeds without unnecessary delays caused by jurisdictional misunderstandings. This strategic choice aligns the procedural route with the practical realities of litigating before the High Court, thereby enhancing the likelihood of an effective presentation of the legal challenge.

Question: What are the key procedural steps that follow the filing of the revision petition, and how do these steps affect the rights and obligations of the accused, the complainant, and the investigating agency?

Answer: Once the revision petition is filed, the Punjab and Haryana High Court issues a notice to the complainant and the investigating agency, inviting them to file their responses within a stipulated period. This notice triggers a reciprocal duty on the accused, through his counsel, to serve a copy of the petition and to be prepared to appear for a preliminary hearing. At the preliminary hearing, the court may direct the parties to file written arguments, often termed “memorials,” which elaborate on the legal points raised in the petition and the counter‑arguments. The accused, represented by lawyers in Chandigarh High Court, must ensure that the memorial emphasizes the alleged error of law in the tribunal’s interpretation and may request that the court exercise its supervisory writ jurisdiction to quash the void‑election order. The complainant, meanwhile, must justify the tribunal’s finding, possibly by submitting additional evidence or reinforcing the statutory construction that includes unpaid village officers within the definition of a government servant. The investigating agency may be called upon to provide records of the officer’s appointment, the register of village heads, and any communications that demonstrate the officer’s role as polling agent. After the exchange of written submissions, the court schedules a substantive hearing where oral arguments are presented. The court may then either decide immediately, issue a direction for further evidence, or reserve the judgment. If the court finds that the tribunal erred, it can quash the void‑election order, thereby restoring the accused’s right to hold office and possibly awarding costs. Conversely, if the court upholds the tribunal’s decision, the election remains void, and the accused may face the prospect of a fresh election. Throughout this process, the procedural steps ensure that both parties have an opportunity to be heard, that the investigating agency’s records are scrutinised, and that the High Court’s supervisory role is exercised in a manner consistent with due process and the principles of natural justice.

Question: What procedural defects in the election tribunal’s order can be highlighted to support a revision petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, and how might those defects affect the scope of judicial review?

Answer: The tribunal’s decision contains several procedural infirmities that a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court can exploit to demonstrate that the order is liable to be set aside on a revision. First, the tribunal failed to give the accused an opportunity to cross‑examine the witnesses who testified that the village officer acted as a polling agent and canvassed on his behalf. The record shows that the accused was not present when the register of village heads was admitted, nor was he allowed to produce a salary slip or a declaration of unpaid status, which are critical to the factual defence. This omission breaches the principle of natural justice that requires a fair hearing before an adjudicatory authority can pronounce a finding that has a decisive impact on a person’s political rights. Second, the tribunal did not record any finding on the materiality of the alleged canvassing; it simply accepted the complainant’s narrative that a single act at one polling station sufficed to constitute a major corrupt practice. The lack of a reasoned analysis on whether the act affected the election result renders the order “manifestly erroneous in fact.” Third, the tribunal’s reliance on the explanatory clause of the statutory definition without expressly addressing the remuneration issue creates a legal defect. The High Court, on revision, is empowered to examine whether the tribunal erred in law, and the absence of a clear legal reasoning on the salary‑based test opens the door for a substantive challenge. By foregrounding these procedural lapses, the revision petition can argue that the tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction, failed to apply the principles of due process, and consequently rendered its order vulnerable to quashing. The practical implication is that the accused may obtain immediate relief, avoid the consequences of disqualification, and restore his elected status pending a full merits hearing. Moreover, highlighting procedural defects underscores the High Court’s supervisory role, ensuring that subordinate authorities adhere to fair‑trial standards in electoral disputes.

Question: How should the accused’s counsel evaluate the evidentiary risk concerning the village officer’s status as a government servant, and which documents or material should be produced to undermine the tribunal’s conclusion?

Answer: The evidentiary assessment must focus on disproving the tribunal’s inference that the village officer, by virtue of appointment, automatically qualifies as a “serving under the Government” person. Lawyers in Chandigarh High Court would advise the accused to gather documentary proof that the officer receives no salary, pension, or any monetary remuneration from the State. This includes obtaining the officer’s bank statements, a statutory declaration under oath confirming the unpaid nature of the role, and any correspondence from the District Magistrate’s office that clarifies the officer’s honorary status. Additionally, the register of village heads, while establishing appointment, does not speak to compensation; therefore, a certified copy of the relevant rulebook or circular that defines the remuneration scheme for village officers in the state should be attached. Witness statements from other village officials or community members attesting that the officer performs duties voluntarily can further erode the prosecution’s narrative. The accused should also seek to produce the statutory explanation that the Supreme Court previously interpreted, emphasizing that the explanatory clause was intended to cover salaried officers, and that the absence of salary creates a factual distinction. Photographic evidence of the officer’s modest living conditions or lack of official government insignia may be admissible to illustrate the non‑governmental nature of the role. On the evidentiary risk side, the prosecution may rely on the appointment order as conclusive proof; thus, the defence must pre‑empt this by filing an affidavit challenging the legal sufficiency of appointment alone to satisfy the definition. By presenting a robust documentary trail, the accused can argue that the tribunal’s factual finding was unsupported, thereby creating a ground for the High Court to quash the void‑election order on the basis of an erroneous factual determination. The practical outcome is a reduced risk of the election being declared void and a stronger position for negotiating a settlement or seeking interim relief.

Question: What strategic considerations arise regarding bail, custody, and the timing of filing the revision petition, especially if the accused is currently detained pending the void‑election order?

Answer: The custody status of the accused is pivotal to the overall strategy. If the accused remains in judicial custody because the tribunal’s order includes a direction for his disqualification and possible detention for contempt, the immediate priority for a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court is to secure bail on the ground that the alleged offence is not yet proven and that the revision petition raises substantial questions of law. The bail application should underscore that the accused’s liberty is essential for him to effectively participate in the High Court proceedings, gather evidence, and coordinate with witnesses. Timing the revision petition is equally critical; filing it promptly after the tribunal’s order demonstrates diligence and prevents the accused from suffering irreversible consequences, such as loss of the elected seat, which may be irreversible if the High Court does not act swiftly. Moreover, the revision petition must be accompanied by a request for interim relief, seeking a stay on the execution of the void‑election order and any attendant penalties. This stay preserves the status quo, allowing the accused to remain in office while the legal questions are adjudicated. The counsel should also anticipate that the prosecution may move to oppose the stay on the basis of public interest; therefore, the petition should highlight the procedural defects and evidentiary gaps identified earlier, arguing that proceeding with the disqualification before a thorough judicial review would be premature and prejudicial. Additionally, the defence may consider filing a simultaneous application for a writ of certiorari, if permissible, to challenge the tribunal’s jurisdiction. The strategic blend of bail, stay, and timely filing ensures that the accused’s custodial rights are protected, the electoral consequences are paused, and the High Court is positioned to focus on the substantive legal issues without the pressure of an already executed void‑election order.

Question: How can a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court frame the legal arguments to persuade the High Court to quash the tribunal’s order, and which precedents or interpretative principles should be emphasized?

Answer: A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court should construct a two‑pronged argument: first, that the tribunal erred in law by expanding the definition of “serving under the Government” beyond the statutory language, and second, that the tribunal’s factual finding on the officer’s remuneration was unsupported. The legal argument must begin by citing the Supreme Court’s earlier decision that a village headman, irrespective of salary, falls within the definition of a government servant for the purpose of major corrupt practices. However, the counsel should distinguish that decision by emphasizing that the Supreme Court’s ruling was predicated on a specific statutory explanation that expressly included “any village officer, by whatever name he is called,” and that the present case involves an officer who is expressly unpaid, thereby creating a factual divergence. The counsel should also invoke the principle of “strict construction” of penal statutes, arguing that any ambiguity should be resolved in favour of the accused, especially where the alleged offence carries severe consequences such as disqualification. Moreover, the argument should reference the doctrine of “error of law on a question of fact” as recognized by the High Court in prior electoral revision cases, where the court has set aside tribunal orders that were based on uncorroborated factual premises. The counsel must highlight that the tribunal did not afford the accused an opportunity to challenge the salary issue, violating the right to a fair hearing. By weaving these precedents and interpretative principles, the lawyer can demonstrate that the tribunal’s order is both legally and factually unsound. The practical implication of this approach is that the High Court may grant a stay, quash the void‑election order, and restore the accused’s elected position, while also providing guidance for future cases on the necessity of a salary‑based test when determining “government servant” status. This strategic framing aligns with the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction and reinforces the importance of procedural fairness in electoral adjudication.