Suppression Of Assets Of Candidate's Spouse Or Dependent Members Amounts To Corrupt Practice- Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court at Kalaburagi Bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj has observed that non-disclosure of assets or suppression of the assets of the candidate, or his or her spouse and dependent members would amount to corrupt practice requiring disqualification of the candidature.
In this case, the petitioner sought to set aside the judgment passed in an Election Petition. Apart from questioning the election of the respondent, a declaration was sought to declare the respondent as a returned candidate without making all the contestants as a party. It was contended that the same violated Section 15(2)(a) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993."
Counsel VK Nayak appeared for the petitioner, while Counsel Shravan Kumar Math and Counsel Maya TR appeared for the respondents.
The following issues were framed and answered accordingly.
1) Whether non arraigning of all the candidates to an election in an election petition where a declaration of the petitioner to be a returned candidate is sought for would result in dismissal of the Election Petition in terms of Sub-section (1) of Section 17 read with clause (a) of Subsection (2) of Section 15 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1993?
The Court held that nonarraigning of all the candidates to an election in a Election Petition where a declaration of the petitioner to be a returned candidate is sought for would necessarily result in dismissal of the Election Petition in terms of Sub-section (1) of Section 17 read with Clause (a) of Sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Panchayat Raj Act.
In that context, it was further said that, "The said dismissal can be made by the Court trying the Election Petition suo motu or an application made by any of the respondents in the said proceedings."
2) Whether nondisclosure or suppression of the assets of the candidate in his nomination form or that of his/her spouse would amount to a corrupt practice requiring disqualification of the candidate or would it require for the petitioner in a Election Petition to establish that such suppression has resulted in an adverse impact favourable to the returned candidate in the elections?
The Court took the considered view that non-disclosure of assets or suppression of the assets of the candidate, or his or her spouse and dependent members would amount to corrupt practice requiring disqualification of the candidature and towards this end, there is no particular requirement for the election petitioner to specifically aver or prove that the suppression has resulted in adverse impact favourable to the returned candidate in the election. The mere suppression is sufficient to invoke the provisions of Section 19(1)(b) of the Panchayat Raj Act.
3) Whether the verifying affidavit to all Election Petitions are required to be in Form-25 of Conduct of Election Rules, in terms of Rule 94-A of the Rules?
The Court held that the affidavit filed by the petitioner in Election Petition No.11/2021 was in due compliance with Rule 94A of the Rules, 1961, Form-25 thereof as also Section 83 of the RP Act.
4) Whether the impugned order suffers from any legal infirmity requiring interference at the hands of this Court?
The Court observed that, "the order passed by the trial Court refusing the relief of declaration of the election petitioner as returned candidate on the ground that other contestants were not made a party and continued with the matter is not in accordance with Section 15(2)(a) of the Act when all the contestants were not made a party and relief of declaration of the Election Petition as returned candidate was sought for, the Election Petition ought to have been rejected in limine in terms of SubSection (1) of Section 17 of the Panchayat Raj Act."
Subsequently, the petition was allowed.
Cause Title: Smt. Abida Begum v. Mohd. Ismail & Ors. [NC: 2023:KHC-K:5857]
