Summary
The Supreme Court upheld the setting aside of a municipal councillor's election. She had not disclosed, in the Rule 24-A affidavit filed with her nomination, a subsisting conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act carrying one year's imprisonment. The non-disclosure made the acceptance of her nomination improper and her election void under Section 22(1)(d) of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961, without separate proof that the result was materially affected. That the offence was minor or did not involve moral turpitude, or that she was acquitted after the election, made no difference.
Issues
- Whether the challenge became infructuous because a bye-election had been held to fill the vacancy.
- Whether non-disclosure of a subsisting conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act in the affidavit under Rule 24-A of the M.P. Nagar Palika Nirvachan Niyam, 1994 made the nomination improperly accepted and the election void under Section 22(1)(d) of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961.
- Whether non-disclosure could be excused because the offence was not serious and did not involve moral turpitude, or because the conviction was later set aside.
- Whether the election petitioner had to prove that the result of the election was materially affected.
Provisions considered
- Section 22(1)(d)(i) and (iii), Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961An election is void where the result, so far as it concerns the returned candidate, is materially affected by improper acceptance of a nomination or by non-compliance with the Act or Rules. Both grounds were held made out by the non-disclosure. (¶¶ 9, 15, 24)
- Rule 24-A, Madhya Pradesh Nagar Palika Nirvachan Niyam, 1994Rule 24-A(1)(i) requires disclosure of any disposed criminal case resulting in conviction, irrespective of sentence. Read with the display and publicity requirements of sub-rules (4) and (5), it was held mandatory and aimed at informing voters; its validity was unchallenged and the Rules allow no condonation of non-compliance. (¶¶ 10, 13, 15, 19, 24)
- Article 19(1)(a), Constitution of IndiaThe disclosure obligation furthers the voter's right to information about candidates' criminal antecedents, following Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms. (¶¶ 13, 14)
- Article 136, Constitution of IndiaNo exceptional circumstance or grave injustice was shown to justify exercising the discretionary jurisdiction, following Pritam Singh v. State. (¶ 25)
- Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881The undisclosed conviction under this section, with a one-year sentence of imprisonment, was in force when the nomination was filed. (¶¶ 12, 15, 19)
Held
- Holding a bye-election did not make the challenge infructuous, because the Court had directed by interim order that its result would abide by the outcome of these proceedings. (¶ 8)
- Rule 24-A(1) requires a candidate to disclose any conviction, irrespective of the sentence. A candidate whose conviction was in force on the date of nomination and who did not disclose it furnished false information with a false verification. This attracts Section 22(1)(d)(iii) of the 1961 Act and makes the acceptance of the nomination improper; a later acquittal in appeal after the election does not help. (¶¶ 12, 13, 15, 25)
- Non-disclosure cannot be excused because the conviction was for a minor offence not involving moral turpitude. The Rules contain no power to condone or exempt compliance on that basis. Krishnamoorthy does not hold that only serious offences need be disclosed; whether non-disclosure is fatal ultimately remains a matter of judicial discretion on the facts. (¶¶ 16, 19, 20)
- Ravi Namboothiri (a fine of Rs.200 for a protest-related offence under a differently worded disclosure provision) and Karikho Kri (non-disclosure of insubstantial asset details) were distinguished, as the petitioner had been sentenced to one year's imprisonment and the affidavit format expressly required disclosure of such a sentence. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18)
- Non-disclosure of a previous conviction impedes the voter's free and informed choice and amounts to suppression of material information. When the returned candidate's nomination is found improperly accepted on that ground, the election is void and the election petitioner need not separately prove that the result was materially affected (following Kisan Shankar Kathore, Mairembam Prithviraj and Krishnamoorthy). (¶¶ 21, 22, 23, 24)
- No case for interference under Article 136 was made out: both courts concurrently found the non-disclosure unjustified, and the petitioner had not entered the witness box to explain the alleged inadvertence. (¶ 25)
Result
Special Leave Petition dismissed; the order unseating the petitioner and declaring her election as Councillor void stands.