Suppressing Criminal Antecedents Deprived Voters of Informed Choice: Madhya Pradesh HC Sets Aside Election of Vijaypur MLA Mukesh Malhotra

Malhotra allegedly misled the electorate by failing to disclose complete and accurate information regarding several criminal cases in his affidavit filed in Form 26 under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

The Court observed that Malhotra had not disclosed certain criminal cases in his election affidavit. In one case, he was convicted under Sections 26(1)(a)(g) and 66(i) of the Indian Forest Act for cutting 210 trees and was sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court with a fine of ₹7,000 and one month’s default imprisonment. Malhotra admitted in cross-examination that the Vijaypur Assembly Constituency is dominated by Adivasi communities who worship trees, making disclosure of such a case particularly relevant to voters. In another case, he was convicted for assaulting the complainant with a shoe and using abusive language, though he was later acquitted by the appellate court on 17-06-2016. He was also tried under Section 505(2) IPC for allegedly spreading hatred against a particular community and calling for their ouster, but was acquitted on 11-03-2023 after the complainant turned hostile.

Justice G. S. Ahluwalia observed, “Under these circumstances, it is held that Malhotra by deliberately and knowingly regarding framing of charges in electorate, therefore, it is held that s impediment in the free exercise of electoral rights, and has deprived the voters to make an informed and advised choice and therefore, this act of suppression has resulted in direct or indirect interference with free exercise of right to vote by the electorate and since, it was within the knowledge of the respondent no.1/Mukesh Malhotra about the pending cases and whether charges have been framed or not, therefore, this act of respondent no.1/Mukesh Malhotra amounts to undue influence, necessitating the declaration of his result as null and void. It is made clear that it is not nec suppression on the part of the respondent no.1/Mukesh Malhotra has materially effected the election result or not because it has to be presumed and such question does not arise. Thus, respondent no. 1/Mukesh Malhotra is held guilty of corrupt practice”.

“Furthermore, it is clear from the evidence of the representatives of News information regarding criminal antecedents was not published in News Papers having wide circulation in Assembly Constituency 02 Vijaypur”, the Bench further noted.

Senior Advocate M.P.S. Raghuvanshi appeared for the petitioner and Senior Advocate Vivek K. Tankha appeared for the respondent.

In the matter, the Court noted that while six criminal cases had been registered against Malhotra, he disclosed incomplete details of only two cases and failed to mention others, including cases in which he had been convicted or acquitted. It also found that in certain cases he falsely stated that charges had not been framed when, in fact, charges had already been framed by the trial court.

Therefore, holding that such suppression amounted to undue influence over voters, the Court declared Malhotra’s election from the Vijaypur Assembly constituency in the 2024 by-election null and void.

The election petition was accordingly allowed, with the Court directing that the consequences under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 would follow.

Cause Title: Ramniwas Rawat v. Mukesh Malhotra And Others [Neutral Citation: 2026:Mphc-Gwl:8025]

Appearances:

Petitioner: M.P.S. Raghuvanshi, Senior Advocate with Sanjay Dwivedi, Sankalp Sharma, Nipun Mittal, Mohd. Amir Khan, Manish Singh Gurjar, Deepali, Aadya Pandey, Tanya Agrawal, Dev Shri Joyjeet Kumar Das, Harshit Raghuvanshi, Advocates.

Respondents: Vivek K. Tankha, Senior Advocate with PratipVisoriya, Siddhant Gupta, Inder Vishesh Dwivedi and Ayushi Sharma, Ravindra Sharma Navnidhi Parharya, Priyanshu Yadav, Advocates.

Click here to read/download the Judgment