Supreme Court: Non-Furnishing Information Of Criminal Antecedents By Candidate Creates Impediment In Free Exercise Of Voter’s Electoral Right
The Supreme Court dismissed an SLP filed by a woman who was convicted under Section 138 of NI Act, however failed to disclose her conviction in the nomination form.
Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that non-furnishing information of criminal antecedents by an election candidate has the effect of causing undue influence which creates an impediment in the free exercise of electoral right by a voter.
The Court observed thus in a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by a woman who was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act), however failed to disclose her conviction in the nomination form for the election to the post of Councillor.
The two-Judge Bench of Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar remarked, “… it is clear from the decision in Krishnamoorthy (supra) that non-furnishing information pertaining to criminal antecedents has the effect of causing undue influence which creates an impediment in the free exercise of electoral right by a voter. When there is such non-disclosure of criminal antecedents, this Court held in paragraph 86(e) that the question whether the election is materially affected or not would not arise in such a case.”
The Bench held that by failing to disclose her conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act, the candidate suppressed material information and thus failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Rule 24-A(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Palika Nirvachan Niyam, 1994.
Senior Advocate Vivek Tankha appeared on behalf of the Petitioner, while AOR Sarvam Ritam Khare appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
Case Background
The Petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the NI Act. She, however, failed to disclose her conviction in the nomination form for the election to the post of Councillor. Her election was challenged by the Respondent, and the Trial Court unseated her from the post of Councillor holding her to be disqualified under the provisions of The Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961. The Revision Application preferred by the Petitioner having been dismissed, she was before the Apex Court.
In the elections held for the post of Councillor at Nagar Parishad, Bhikangaon, the Petitioner was elected from Ward No. 5, securing the highest number of votes. The Respondent had filed an Election Petition under Section 20 of 1961 Act read with 1994 Rules. He sought a declaration that the Petitioner be held disqualified for holding the post of Councillor and that her seat be declared as vacant. He had pleaded that the Petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of NI Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of one year along with a fine.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “On consideration of the statutory provisions as well as the documentary material on record it becomes clear that under Rule 24-A (1) of the Rules of 1994, every candidate contesting elections is required to furnish information which includes declaration of criminal antecedents, etc. The information required to be furnished is with regard to any pending criminal case in which the candidate is charged or any criminal case that has been disposed of and has resulted in his conviction. Failure to furnish such affidavit can result in rejection of the nomination paper.”
The Court was of the view that the Petitioner was obligated to furnish information about her conviction and consequently being sentenced to imprisonment for a period of one year.
“… by failing to disclose her previous conviction, the petitioner furnished false and incorrect information as regards her criminal antecedents. As a result the verification of her affidavit was false and incorrect despite the fact that the petitioner had full knowledge of her conviction which she had subjected to further challenge. As a consequence, the ground under Section 22 (1) (d) (iii) of the Act of 1961 became available for declaring her election to be void”, it added.
The Court said that as a result of such false information being furnished by the Petitioner in her affidavit filed under Rule 24-A (1) of the Rules of 1994, her nomination paper was improperly accepted.
“Rule 24A-(1) requires a candidate to disclose any order of conviction suffered by him by filing an affidavit along with the relevant information before the Returning Officer. … The plea raised by the petitioner that her election could not be set aside in the absence of it being proved that the result of the election had been materially affected on account of the improper acceptance of her nomination form need not detain us”, it observed.
The Court elucidated that once it is found that there has been non-disclosure of a previous conviction by a candidate, it creates an impediment in the free exercise of electoral right by a voter.
“A voter is thus deprived of making an informed and advised choice. It would be a case of suppression/non-disclosure by such candidate, which renders the election void”, it added.
The Court further said that such wrongful acceptance of the nomination form of the returned candidate would result in the election being materially affected rendering it void was recognised as a consequence.
“The acceptance of her nomination form has therefore been rightly held to be improper. She being the returned candidate, her election was rendered void. It is thus obvious that on account of such wrongful acceptance of her nomination form, the election was materially affected. This contention of the petitioner also fails”, it also noted.
Conclusion
Moreover, the Court refused to hold that the Petitioner has made out an exceptional case for the Court to hold that notwithstanding the failure on the part of the Petitioner to disclose her conviction leading to the sentence of imprisonment of one year, such lapse should be condoned.
“The information furnished in her affidavit filed under Rule 24-A(1) of the Rules of 1994 has been found to be incorrect and false. The petitioner rests on her subsequent acquittal in appeal, which event occurred after her election. She did not step into the witness box to explain her inadvertence, which is now sought to be put forward”, it remarked.
The Court, therefore, concluded that no special or exceptional case has been made out by the Petitioner for the Court to exercise jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Accordingly, the Apex Court dismissed the SLP.
Cause Title- Poonam v. Dule Singh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1284)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Vivek Tankha, AOR Niti Richhariya, Advocates Inder Dev Singh, Ashish S. Sharma, and Lucky Jain.
Respondents: AORs Sarvam Ritam Khare, Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Advocates Kushagra Sharma, Akarsh Khare, Abhinav Srivastav, Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Astik Gupta, and Akanksha Tomar.
