Error in describing degree no ground to unseat MLA: Manipur High Court upholds election of BJP's Karam Shyam

The Manipur High Court has upheld the election of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) candidate Karam Shyam from the Langthabal Assembly constituency in the 2022 assembly elections [Okram Joy Singh Vs Karam Shyam].

In a judgment delivered on July 14, Chief Justice M Sundar rejected the claim by Congress candidate Okram Joy Singh that Shyam made false disclosures about his landholdings and educational qualification in his election affidavit

The Court held that Shyam’s description of his bachelor’s degree in textile technology as a degree in textile engineering was not a substantial mis-disclosure that could warrant rejection of his nomination or annulment of his election.

“Merely describing textile technology as textile engineering is not substantial mis-disclosure and it is clearly non-substantial/insubstantial,” the Court ruled.

The Court passed the judgment on July 14 in an election petition filed by Indian National Congress candidate Okram Joy Singh, who had lost the 2022 election to Shyam by a margin of 2,053 votes.

The judgment was passed in an election petition filed by Singh, who had lost the 2022 election to Shyam by a margin of 2,053 votes.

Shyam secured 10,815 votes while Singh polled 8,762 votes. A National People’s Party candidate received 5,949 votes and an independent candidate secured 504 votes. Another 237 votes were cast for None of the Above (NOTA).

Singh challenged Shyam’s election primarily on two grounds. He alleged that Shyam had wrongly declared that he held a bachelor’s degree in textile engineering from the Government Central Textile Institute, Kanpur, even though the degree awarded to him in 1987 was in textile technology.

The petitioner also alleged that Shyam had stated “NIL” in the column concerning non-agricultural land in form 26 despite owning two contiguous parcels of homestead land measuring 0.132 acres and 0.033 acres.

However, the Court found that Shyam had disclosed both the land and the residential structure standing on it in the column concerning residential buildings. The same property was also mentioned as his residential address.

It held that the failure to repeat the details in the column for non-agricultural land could not be treated as suppression of an asset.

The Court also noted that land records in Manipur did not contain a separate classification called “non-agricultural land”. A revenue officer had testified that land in the State was classified as homestead land and three categories of agricultural land.

Since the electorate knew that Shyam owned the house in which he lived and had access to details of the same, their right to make an informed choice was not affected, the Court said.

On Shyam’s educational qualification, the Court acknowledged that textile technology and textile engineering were separate courses and that the institute did not offer a bachelor’s degree in textile engineering in 1987.

However, there was no dispute that Shyam had completed a four-year bachelor’s degree relating to the textile industry from the institute that year.

The Court said the difference in the description could not have materially influenced voters or affected the election result. It added that the argument that there was a “world of difference between a technician and an engineer” faded into insignificance in the facts of the case.

The Court consequently dismissed Singh’s election petition.

Senior Advocate HS Paonam instructed by advocates BR Sharma and S Gunabanta represented Singh.

Advocates A Mohendro, Kh Lupenjit and David Boon represented Shyam.

[Read Judgment]