Abstract
It is an unerringly established fact that free and fair elections are the blood and soul of true democracy. It is only under credible democracy that the masses may enjoy the spectrum of certain liberties in a decent way. Freedom to live peacefully, liberty to elect and be elected, atmosphere to form unions and associations are possible only in a strong democratic set up. As the election has been stated to be an empirical demonstration of citizens’ liberty and political choice1, therefore, in case, mandate of the electorate is toppled by way of high-handedness, rigging and blatant gerrymandering, the democracy, of course, will be on verge of dissipation. Through the prism of this paper, an attempt has been made to evaluate the judicial approaches in India and Pakistan for maintaining the sacrosanctity of the electoral process. Ordinarily, the technicalities are not allowed to hinder the dispensation of justice but in rendering justice, the tribunals, which are the creation of law, have to draw their powers from the statute. Admittedly, an election suit is neither an action at law nor a lis in equity rather the same is deemed to be a statutory proceeding alien to the common law. So, courts have always been hesitant in interfering in the mandate secured by the successful candidate on the premise of maintaining the purity of the electoral process but, at the same time, they have to prevent the intrusion of political sharks by violating the law or having recourse to other invidious means like corrupt practices.