False declaration about educational qualification falls under Section 123(4) of Representation of People Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that a false declaration made in relation to education qualification by a candidate standing for elections can be brought within the ambit of Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 [Yogender Chandolia v Vishesh Ravi and Ors]..Section 123 (4) of the Act relates to the publication of false information by a candidate and reads: “The publication by a candidate or his agent or by any other person [with the consent of a candidate or his election agent], of any statement of fact which is false, and which he either believes to be false or does not believe to be true, in relation to the personal character or conduct of any candidate or in relation to the candidature, or withdrawal, of any candidate, being a statement reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of that candidate’s election.”.The Court said that the expression “in relation to candidature” in the Section should, in its view, include the information regarding education qualification of a candidate.“The expression "in relation to candidature" should, in my view, include information concerning the educational qualification of a candidate, since the Supreme Court has unambiguously held that voters have the fundamental right to know the antecedents of the candidate. A false declaration made, qua educational qualification can be brought within the four corners of Section 123(4) of the 1951 Act,” single-judge Justice Rajiv Shakdher, therefore, held..The Court was dealing with an election petition filed by Yogender Chandolia, a leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), challenging the election of Aam Aadmi Party’s Vishesh Ravi from Karol Bagh Constituency in the February 2020 Delhi assembly elections. The petition argued that Ravi was elected from Karol Bagh on February 8, 2020 however his candidature should be declared null and void since he had furnished false information in his Form 26 regarding his education qualification and that he had also failed to disclose that a First Information Report (FIR) pending against him.Ravi, however, filed an application stating that the petition, read as a whole, did not disclose any cause of action and should, therefore, be rejected without trial..The Court went on to examine whether the petition should be rejected at the present stage.Citing the Supreme Court judgment in the cases of Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) as well as People’s Union for Civil Liberties, Justice Shakdher held that as per law, a candidates who files his nomination is required to disclose his educational qualification as well as his past convictions which includes fines, imprisonment, acquittals and discharge.“Disclosure qua the aforesaid is in addition to the disclosure of information qua pending criminal case where a person if convicted, can be sentenced to imprisonment for two years or more, albeit, where charge is framed or cognizance is taken by Court of law, and information concerning the candidate's assets including those of the spouse and dependents as also liabilities, particularly, those related to the Government or public institutes. 10.5. Therefore, the assertions made in the election petition have to be viewed in the broad framework of law, as enunciated by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned judgments,” the Court said..Regarding the FIR, the Court agreed that though registration of FIR does not mean a pending criminal case, but this does not help the respondent sustain his defense that he has made a full disclosure.Justice Shakdher further said that given the material regarding changing claims of educational qualification by the respondent, the election petition cannot be rejected merely because May 2002 Academic Examination Result for Class X concerning the MLA does not match with the assertion made in the petition.The arguments need to be read in entirety and the matter needs to be tried, the Court said.With these observations the Court that it will not reject the petition and dismissed the application. It has now directed the petitioner to file a fresh affidavit in prescribed form within 15 days.“While doing so, the petitioner will bear in mind the requirements captured in Form-25, vis-a-vis verification of the particulars of the corrupt practice required to be provided in the affidavit. The petitioner will state clearly in the affidavit, the parts which are true to his knowledge and those which are based on information,” it said.The Court then proceeded to list the case for framing of issues on February 25, 2022. .While advocate Abhijat appeared for the petitioner in the case, the elected MLA was represented by advocates Anupam Srivastava along with Sarita Pandey and Dhairya Gupta. Advocate Sidhant Kumar appeared as Amicus Curiae..[Read Order]