Summary
The appellant was elected councillor of the Mysore Municipal Corporation in 2018. Her affidavit of assets under State Election Commission notifications gave her husband's name wrongly and declared that he owned no property when he did. Her election was set aside on an election petition, and the High Court affirmed. She argued that the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act and rules required no such disclosure. The Court dismissed the appeal. Under Article 243-ZA, the State Election Commission has powers like those of the Election Commission under Article 324 to fill legislative gaps, and the notifications were valid under ADR. Section 39(2) of the KMC Act adopts 'undue influence' from Section 123(2) of the RP Act, which Lok Prahari held includes non-disclosure of assets. A false declaration is a corrupt practice, and its effect on the election is presumed.
Issues
- Whether a State Election Commission could require municipal candidates to disclose the assets of their spouses and dependents by affidavit in the absence of a provision in the KMC Act or rules
- Whether a false declaration of a spouse's assets is a corrupt practice ('undue influence') under Section 39(2) of the KMC Act, warranting the election being declared void
- Whether the false declaration must be shown to have materially affected the election result
Provisions considered
- Articles 243-K and 243-ZA(1), read with Article 324(1), Constitution of IndiaArticle 243-ZA(1) is in pari materia with Article 324(1), so the State Election Commission may issue directions where the law is silent. Its 2003 notification requiring disclosure of assets was within the contours of law. (¶¶ 63, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70, 72)
- Sections 27, 35(1)(b) and 39(2), Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976Corrupt practice by a returned candidate voids the election and entails six years' disqualification. Section 39(2) adopts 'undue influence' as defined in Section 123(2) of the RP Act. (¶¶ 44, 45, 47, 59, 60, 61)
- Section 123(2), Representation of the People Act, 1951As interpreted in Lok Prahari, non-disclosure of the assets of candidates and their associates is 'undue influence', and that interpretation applies equally under the KMC Act. (¶¶ 31, 46, 55, 61, 62)
Held
- An election petition is a statutory proceeding (Jyoti Basu, Shrikant), but those decisions and the cases on strict construction of penal and disqualification provisions are distinguishable. A judgment is a precedent only for what it decides, read in its factual context. (¶¶ 23, 24, 40, 41)
- Following ADR and Lok Prahari, voters have a right under Article 19(1)(a) to know candidates' assets, including those of spouses and dependents. The State Election Commission's power under Article 243-ZA mirrors the Election Commission's under Article 324 and includes issuing directions where the law is silent. Its 2003 notification did not encroach on the legislature's domain, consistently with Krishnamoorthy. (¶¶ 57, 63, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70)
- Because Section 39(2) of the KMC Act incorporates the definition of undue influence in Section 123(2) of the RP Act, non-disclosure of assets is a corrupt practice under the KMC Act. A false declaration of the assets of a candidate, spouse or dependents is a corrupt practice irrespective of its impact on the result, which may be presumed. (¶¶ 38, 55, 61, 62)
- Having accepted and acted on the notifications by filing an affidavit, the appellant cannot question them after swearing a false affidavit. Purity of elections at every level is a matter of national importance, and a hypertechnical reliance on the absence of an express rule cannot condone dishonesty. (¶¶ 58, 70, 71, 74)
Result
Appeal dismissed. The judgments setting aside the appellant's election as councillor on the ground of corrupt practice were upheld.