The Supreme Court today ruled that non-disclosure by a candidate of criminal antecedents as mandated by law will make his election null and void..The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Prafulla C Pant in an appeal filed by one Krishnamoorthy (Appellant) challenging the scrapping of his election as Panchayat President..Krishnamaoorthy’s election was challenged before the Election Tribunal vide an election petition on the ground that he had not disclosed details about criminal cases pending against him as was required by a 2006 notification of the Tamil Nadu State Election Commission. The Tribunal declared his election null and void and the decision was upheld by the Madras High Court. Krishnamoorthy came in appeal to the Supreme Court challenging the same..Advocate V Mohana appeared for Krishnamoorthy. Advocate Subramonium Prasad represented the State Election Commission. Additional Solicitor General Maninder Singh represented the Central government. Senior Advocate Harish Salve served as the amicus curiae in the case..The Court after hearing the parties held that when there is a law requiring disclosure of criminal antecedents of contesting candidates at the time of filing of nomination paper, particularly heinous offences relating to corruption or moral turpitude, that would be a “categorical imperative” and non-disclosure of such details will be an “impediment in the free exercise of electoral right”. It further held that Concealment or suppression of such a nature will “deprive the voters to make an informed and advised choice as a consequence of which it would come within the compartment of direct or indirect interference or attempt to interfere with the free exercise of the right to vote by the electorate, on the part of the candidate.”.Faced with the question whether such non-disclosure would amount to undue influence, one of the facets of “corrupt practice” under Section 123(2) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, the Court proceeded to hold that when a candidate,.“has the special knowledge of the pending cases where cognizance has been taken or charges have been framed and there is a non-disclosure on his part, it would amount to undue influence and, therefore, the election is to be declared null and void by the Election Tribunal under Section 100(1)(b) of the 1951 Act.”.The Court also distinguished between “disqualification” of a candidate and “corrupt practice” by a candidate..“Section 8 of the 1951 Act stipulates that conviction under certain offences would disqualify a person for being a Member either of House of Parliament or the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State. We repeat at the cost of repetition unless a person is disqualified under law to contest the election, he cannot be disqualified to contest.It is necessary to clarify here that if a candidate gives all the particulars and despite that he secures the votes that will be an informed, advised and free exercise of right by the electorate. That is why there is a distinction between a disqualification and the corrupt practice. In an election petition, the election petitioner is required to assert about the cases in which the successful candidate is involved as per the rules and how there has been non-disclosure in the affidavit. Once that is established, it would amount to corrupt practice.”.On the above grounds, the Court dismissed the appeal and also imposed costs of Rs. 50,000 on the Appellant..Read the full judgment below.
The Supreme Court today ruled that non-disclosure by a candidate of criminal antecedents as mandated by law will make his election null and void..The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Prafulla C Pant in an appeal filed by one Krishnamoorthy (Appellant) challenging the scrapping of his election as Panchayat President..Krishnamaoorthy’s election was challenged before the Election Tribunal vide an election petition on the ground that he had not disclosed details about criminal cases pending against him as was required by a 2006 notification of the Tamil Nadu State Election Commission. The Tribunal declared his election null and void and the decision was upheld by the Madras High Court. Krishnamoorthy came in appeal to the Supreme Court challenging the same..Advocate V Mohana appeared for Krishnamoorthy. Advocate Subramonium Prasad represented the State Election Commission. Additional Solicitor General Maninder Singh represented the Central government. Senior Advocate Harish Salve served as the amicus curiae in the case..The Court after hearing the parties held that when there is a law requiring disclosure of criminal antecedents of contesting candidates at the time of filing of nomination paper, particularly heinous offences relating to corruption or moral turpitude, that would be a “categorical imperative” and non-disclosure of such details will be an “impediment in the free exercise of electoral right”. It further held that Concealment or suppression of such a nature will “deprive the voters to make an informed and advised choice as a consequence of which it would come within the compartment of direct or indirect interference or attempt to interfere with the free exercise of the right to vote by the electorate, on the part of the candidate.”.Faced with the question whether such non-disclosure would amount to undue influence, one of the facets of “corrupt practice” under Section 123(2) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, the Court proceeded to hold that when a candidate,.“has the special knowledge of the pending cases where cognizance has been taken or charges have been framed and there is a non-disclosure on his part, it would amount to undue influence and, therefore, the election is to be declared null and void by the Election Tribunal under Section 100(1)(b) of the 1951 Act.”.The Court also distinguished between “disqualification” of a candidate and “corrupt practice” by a candidate..“Section 8 of the 1951 Act stipulates that conviction under certain offences would disqualify a person for being a Member either of House of Parliament or the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State. We repeat at the cost of repetition unless a person is disqualified under law to contest the election, he cannot be disqualified to contest.It is necessary to clarify here that if a candidate gives all the particulars and despite that he secures the votes that will be an informed, advised and free exercise of right by the electorate. That is why there is a distinction between a disqualification and the corrupt practice. In an election petition, the election petitioner is required to assert about the cases in which the successful candidate is involved as per the rules and how there has been non-disclosure in the affidavit. Once that is established, it would amount to corrupt practice.”.On the above grounds, the Court dismissed the appeal and also imposed costs of Rs. 50,000 on the Appellant..Read the full judgment below.
