Courts Shouldn’t Rush To Invalidate Election Merely Because Candidate Hasn’t Disclosed Certain Information Related To Assets: Supreme Court Rejects Plea Against BRS MLA

The Supreme Court held that merely because a returned candidate has not disclosed certain information related to the assets, Courts should not rush to invalidate the election.

The Court dismissed a Civil Appeal filed by INC (Indian National Congress) member Ajmera Shyam against BRS (Bharat Rashtra Samithi) party MLA (Member of Legislative Assembly) Kova Laxmi.

The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh observed, “We are, thus, of the view that merely because a returned candidate has not disclosed certain information related to the assets, courts should not rush to invalidate the election by adopting a highly pedantic and fastidious approach, unless it is shown that such concealment or non-disclosure was of such magnitude and substantial nature that it could have influenced the election result.”

The Bench said that as long as the assets, income, and sources of income are otherwise disclosed, and if there is no dispute of the same, non-disclosure of the tax return for certain financial years, although a technical defect under the Rules, cannot be considered to be a defect of significant importance as it does not in any manner amount to hiding the assets.

Senior Advocates B. Rajendran and Dama Seshadri represented the Appellant while Senior Advocate Vipin Sanghi represented the Respondents.

Brief Facts

Prior to 2023 election, the Respondent was a member of the Legislative Assembly for the State of Telangana from the Asifabad Assembly Constituency (ST) for the period 2014-2018. Subsequently in 2019, she contested the elections to the Zilla Parishad Territorial Constituency (ZPTC) and was elected as a ZPTC Member. She was then elected as the Chairperson of Kumuram Bheem Zilla Parishad, Asifabad, and continued in that role until December 2023, before being re-elected as an MLA. Upon notification of the General Election to the Telangana Legislative Assembly by the Election Commission of India (ECI) in 2023, the Respondent submitted her nomination along with required Form 26 Affidavit, as a nominee of BRS Party.

There were a total of 17 candidates contesting from the constituency, including the Appellant and Respondent. The Respondent was declared as the returned candidate by a margin of 22,798 votes. Thereafter, the Appellant filed an Election Petition before the Telangana High Court, challenging the election of the Respondent. However, the High Court dismissed the same, holding that the omission of income details in the income tax return for four out of the last five financial years is not of a significant nature. Being aggrieved, the Appellant approached the Apex Court via Appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (RP Act).

Issues for Consideration

The following issues arose before the Court for consideration –

1. Whether the non-mentioning of the income shown in the income tax return for four financial years in the Form 26 Affidavit and its portrayal as “Nil” would amount to non-disclosure, thereby rendering the acceptance of the nomination of Respondent as improper and making her election liable to be declared void under Section 100(1)(d)(i) of the Act?

2. Whether such non-disclosure constitutes a corrupt practice, rendering her election liable to be declared void under Section 100(1)(b) of the Act?

3. Does such non-disclosure amount to a violation of Rule 4A of the Rules, despite mentioning the assets and liabilities, source of income, and profession, thereby materially affecting the election of Respondent and warranting the voiding of her election under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act?

4. Whether the Respondent had fully disclosed her income in the form of honorarium she was drawing and whether she was receiving ex-MLA pension during the relevant period?

Reasoning

The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, noted, “What has not been disclosed in the form of Income Tax Returns is certain information relating to assets and not “of assets”, as there was full disclosure of her assets and source of income. … It is also not the case that Respondent No.1 did not disclose her Income Tax Returns at all. She did disclose her Income Tax Returns for the Financial Year 2022-2023, which is reflective of her assets and income.”

The Court added that unless it is shown that the assets and income during the other financial years were substantially in variance and these were not disclosed, not much grievance can be made by the Election Petitioner, for these income tax returns not disclosed would not have been in variance substantially from the Income Tax Return (ITR) already filed.

“However, nothing has been shown by the election petitioner about any disproportionately higher income vis-à-vis the sources of income in respect of the period for which the income tax returns had not been filed. … Under the circumstances, since there is no serious dispute about the assets and the source of income of Respondent No.1 which have been already disclosed, non-disclosure of income tax returns, though a procedural and technical defect, in our opinion, does not amount to misrepresentation or non-disclosure of assets which is of consequence”, it said.

The Court further observed that this is not a case of providing false information or engaging in disinformation, but rather a failure to provide certain information concerning the assets, which does not amount to a defect of substantial character warranting declaration of Respondent’s election as void.

“… having participated in the election and competed with other candidates and taken the chance to be elected, the election petitioner’s attempt now to challenge the elected candidate's victory on a technicality, which we have already discussed, lacks substantial basis, does not inspire confidence of this Court as far as the bona fide of the election petitioner is concerned. The Court’s proceeding should not be reduced to a legal gamble, when electorally defeated”, it remarked.

The Court was of the view that the true test would be whether the non-disclosure of information about assets in any case is of consequential or inconsequential import, finding of which will be the basis for declaring the election valid or void as the case may be.

Conclusion

The Court also elucidated, “… the Court has made a subtle distinction between non-disclosure of criminal antecedents and that of assets and educational qualifications. While disclosure of criminal antecedents in the electoral process was the most critical element to maintain the purity of the electoral process which has to be scrupulously adhered to, disclosure of assets and educational qualifications were considered as attending supplementary requirements to strengthen the electoral process, of which there will be certain scope for consideration as to whether it is of substantial or inconsequential nature.”

The Court added that this disclosure requirement as far as assets and educational qualification is concerned, should not be unreasonably stretched to invalidate an otherwise validly declared election over minor technical non compliances that are not of substantial character, and should not be the basis for nullification of the people’s mandate.

“In the light of the legal position exposited, on examination of the facts in the peculiar background obtaining in the case, we hold that the non-disclosure of income in the income tax return for four financial years by Respondent No.1, is not a defect of substantial character. Therefore, the nomination could not have been rejected under Section 36(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 as contended by the Appellant and hence, no illegality was committed by the Returning Officer in accepting the nomination of the Respondent No.1”, it held.

The Court, therefore, concluded that the penal clause cannot be invoked to invalidate Respondent 's election under Section 100(1)(d)(i) of the Act on the ground that her nomination was improperly accepted.

Accordingly, the Apex Court dismissed the Appeal.

Cause Title- Ajmera Shyam v. Kova Laxmi & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 992)

Appearance:

Appellant: Senior Advocates B. Rajendran, Dama Seshadri Naidu, AOR Somanadri Goud Katam, Advocates Neha Agarwal, Rahul Jayapal Reddy, and Sirajuddin.

Respondents: Senior Advocate Vipin Sanghi, AOR P. Mohith Rao, Advocates J. Akshitha, Eugene S Philomene, and J Venkat Sai.

Click here to read/download the Judgment