Summary
A complainant alleged that an election candidate knowingly omitted two pending criminal cases from his nomination affidavit. The Court held that the required disclosure extended to cases where cognizance had been taken, even without framed charges. It set aside the threshold dismissal and restored the complaint for fresh consideration, without determining criminal guilt.
Issues
- Whether omission of pending cases in which cognizance had been taken could attract Section 125-A of the Representation of the People Act.
Provisions considered
- Sections 33-A and 125-A, Representation of the People Act, 1951Disclosure obligations and the penal provision were read with the prescribed affidavit and rules, rather than confined to the expressly listed charge-framed and conviction categories. (¶¶ 9, 11, 19, 20)
- Rule 4-A and Form 26, entries 5(i) and 5(ii), Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961The 2012 prescribed affidavit separately required disclosure of pending cases with cognizance, in addition to charge-framed cases. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)
Held
- The voter’s right to information and the earlier disclosure decisions informed the statutory scheme. Form 26 as substituted in 2012, applicable to the 2014 election, expressly included pending cases where a competent court had taken cognizance. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17)
- Section 33-A, Rule 4-A, Form 26 and the Election Commission’s clarifications required disclosure beyond the two categories expressly identified in Section 33-A(1). Cognizance cases were additional to framed-charge cases involving offences punishable by two years or more and the specified convictions; the Commission’s clarification covered cognizance cases irrespective of punishment or framing of charges. (¶¶ 18, 19, 21)
- The complaint expressly alleged the candidate’s knowledge of the omitted cases. On that basis its threshold dismissal, as upheld by the High Court, was legally untenable; it required fresh trial-court consideration. (¶¶ 20, 22)
Result
The appeals were allowed and the High Court order dated 3 May 2018 set aside. The trial court was directed to consider the complaint afresh from the stage at which it had been interdicted. Pending intervention, impleadment and other applications were disposed of; no conviction or election invalidation was ordered.