Courts Aren’t Chartered Accountants: Supreme Court Stays Karnataka High Court's Ruling Setting Aside Congress MLA SN Subbareddy's Election

The Supreme Court on Friday stayed the operation of a Karnataka High Court judgment that had nullified the 2023 election victory of Congress MLA S.N. Subbareddy from the Bagepalli constituency.

On February 16, 2026, the Karnataka High Court delivered a judgment in an election petition that challenged the 2023 victory of S.N. Subbareddy from the Bagepalli Assembly Constituency. The petitioner, C. Muniraju, who contested from the Bharatiya Janata Party, alleged that Subbareddy had suppressed vital information in his election affidavit.

The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi ordered, "Operation of the impugned judgment dated so and so shall remain stayed. The Petitioner shall continue to be a duly elected Member of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly...The counter-affidavit shall be filed within six weeks, rejoinder may be filed within four weeks. Post the appeal in the week commencing 07.09.2026."

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared on behalf of the Petitioner.

Counsel for the Election Petitioner said, "One thing to point out, there is an admission on behalf of him...that he runs two businesses, i.e. liquor and hospitality..."

Chief Justice replied, "When you don't win the election, then you start digging out."

Justice Bagchi, "Not necessary for this reason, we will have to examine it...the total expenditure, income of the accounts have been disclosed."

Justice Bagchi said, "Does the directions in the Common Cause, Lok Praharai judgment require the nature of business to be disclosed? Only income needs to be".

"Courts cannot perform the role of a chartered accountant," Chief Justice Kant said.

The High Court found that Subbareddy failed to disclose several key financial details in his "Form 26" affidavit. These omissions included the current account balances of five of his business entities and his wife's business. Additionally, the court noted that he did not disclose significant unpaid property taxes—amounting to over ₹1.33 crore—which were only paid months after the election took place. Subbareddy argued these were oversight or technical errors, but the court rejected this, stating that the non-disclosure of assets and sources of income constituted "undue influence" over voters.

Subbareddy defended his actions by claiming the errors were due to oversight, "typographical errors," or the lack of formal demand notices from tax authorities. However, the judge rejected these explanations. The court ruled that providing accurate information about assets and liabilities is a fundamental right of the voter and that hiding such significant financial data constituted "undue influence". This led the court to declare Subbareddy’s election void and set it aside.

The High Court held, "Even though the information furnished by a candidate would amount to non-disclosure or false declaration, the Returning Officer may not have an opportunity of examining the authenticity of allegations at the stage of accepting nomination as could be done in an election petition after conducting a full-fledged trial. This requires a concise statement as per Section 83 of the R.P. Act, 1951, pleading and proof on corrupt practices beyond reasonable doubt; it would be impossible to imagine such a situation at the very stage of filing of the nomination. Therefore, the contention urged by the petitioner of improper acceptance of nomination under the fact situation of this matter cannot be countenanced."

The High Court partially allowed the petition by setting aside Subbareddy’s election, declaring it void due to these "corrupt practices" under the Representation of the People Act. However, the judge refused to declare the petitioner, Muniraju, as the winner. The court explained that because there were multiple candidates in the race, it was impossible to determine how the public would have voted if they had known about Subbareddy’s disqualification at the time of the election.

It ordered, "Petition is partly allowed...Election of Respondent No.1 to the 16th Karnataka Legislative Assembly from 140- Bagepalli Assembly Constituency is set aside. Relief of Declaration sought by the petitioner to declare him as duly elected to fill the seat of the 16th Karnataka Legislative Assembly from 140- Bagepalli Assembly Constituency is rejected."

Accordingly, the Supreme Court listed the matter on September 7, 2026.

Cause Title: SN Subbareddy @ Chinnakayalapalli v. C Muniraju and Ors. [C.A. No.2419/2026]