Supreme Court: In a civil appeal filed under Section 116-A of Representation of People Act, 1951 (‘the Act’) against the impugned judgment and order dated 25-10-2024 passed by Telangana High Court (‘High Court’), whereby, the appellant’s election petition was dismissed, the Division Bench of Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh* and Surya Kant, JJ., stated that merely because a returned candidate had not disclosed certain information related to the assets, courts should not rush to invalidate the election by adopting a fastidious approach, unless it was shown that such concealment or non-disclosure was of substantial nature that could have influenced the election result.
Thus, the Court stated that the non-disclosure of income in the income tax return for four financial years by Respondent 1, was not a defect of substantial character. Therefore, the nomination could not have been rejected, as contended by the appellant and dismissed the present appeal.
Background
Prior to the impugned election of 2023, Respondent 1 was a member of the Legislative Assembly for the State of Telangana from the Asifabad Assembly Constituency (ST) (‘Constituency’) for the period 2014-2018. Subsequently, in 2019, Respondent 1 contested the elections to the Zilla Parishad Territorial Constituency (ZPTC) and was elected as a ZPTC Member on 2-5-2019. She was then elected as the Chairperson of Kumuram Bheem Zilla Parishad, Asifabad, and continued in that role until 3-3-12-2023, before being re-elected as an MLA, which is the subject matter of this challenge.
Upon notification of the General Election to the Telangana Legislative Assembly by the Election Commission of India in 2023, Respondent 1 submitted her nomination as a nominee of the Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) Party. There were total of 17 candidates contesting from the constituency, including the appellant, as a nominee of the Indian National Congress and Respondent 1.
The polling was held on 30-11-2023, and Respondent 1 was declared as the returned candidate by a margin of 22,798 votes. Thereafter, the appellant filed the election petition before the High Court, challenging the election of Respondent 1 as void, and consequently, to declare the appellant as the elected candidate from the said constituency. However, the High Court dismissed the said petition.
The main issue in the present case was whether non-disclosure of income, as per the income tax return for four years in Form 26 Affidavit, amounts to concealment of asset-related information. Further, whether this constitutes a material defect that would make the acceptance of the Respondent 1’s nomination improper, thereby attracting the penal clause of Section 100(1)(d)(i) of the Act.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that election is a hugely expensive and time-consuming process involving the candidates and the vast electorate, who take their valuable time off, to choose their representatives. Hence, any tinkering with the election result has the potential to undermine the voice of the people and their participation in shaping the government. Thus, the Court observed that once the people have spoken their mind by casting their votes through the ballot box and reposed their confidence in the elected candidate, whenever the issue of invalidating the people’s mandate is raised before the it, it must be very careful and circumspect.
Thus, the Court stated that it must keep in mind that declaring an election void solely for non-disclosure of assets, if it lacks substantiality, could undermine the validity of the popular mandate. To nullify the choice of the people on a minor technicality and insignificant non-disclosure of assets by the elected candidate, would have serious repercussions on the democratic process. The Court stated that while the court plays a vital role in upholding the rule of law, utmost care must be taken to ensure that election results were not invalidated based on minor/technical irregularities that do not substantially impinge on the law.
The Court stated that minor procedural errors or purely technical objections of inconsequential nature should not be allowed to override the mandate of the electorate. The will of the people, expressed through the election result, should be respected, unless it was corrupted by fraudulent practices, in which case, the court should intervene without hesitation.
The Court stated that it had held that mere failure to disclose assets in the affidavit, if it did not constitute a material defect and was not of a substantial character, would not make the acceptance of the nomination improper, thus invalidating the election. In the present case, Respondent 1 had not mentioned the income as per the income tax return for the last four financial years of 2018-2022 in Form 26 Affidavit. However, she did not leave the relevant column blank but filled it as ‘NIL’. The Court noted that during the trial, apart from the allegation that the Respondent 1 did not disclose her income, no other facts or materials were presented to demonstrate any significant concealment of assets or sources of income.
The Court stated that there was no serious dispute about the assets and the source of Respondent 1’s income, which have been already disclosed, non-disclosure of income tax returns, though a procedural and technical defect did not amount to misrepresentation or non-disclosure of assets. Further, Respondent 1 had not left the relevant column in the Affidavit blank, which would have made the nomination paper fatally defective and liable to be rejected.
The Court stated that the present case was not a case of providing false information or engaging in disinformation, but rather a failure to provide certain information concerning the assets which did not amount to a defect of substantial character warranting declaration of Respondent 1’s election as void. Thus, the Court observed that merely because a returned candidate had not disclosed certain information related to the assets, courts should not rush to invalidate the election by adopting a highly pedantic and fastidious approach, unless it was shown that such concealment or non-disclosure was of such magnitude and substantial nature that it could have influenced the election result.
The Court stated that disclosure of assets and educational qualification, should not be unreasonably stretched to invalidate an otherwise validly declared election over minor technical non-compliances that were not of substantial character, and should not be the basis for nullification of the people’s mandate.
Thus, the Court stated that the non-disclosure of income in the income tax return for four financial years by Respondent 1, was not a defect of substantial character. Therefore, the nomination could not have been rejected, as contended by the appellant. Consequently, the penal clause could not be invoked to invalidate Respondent 1’s election under Section 100(1)(d)(i) of the Act on the ground that her nomination was improperly accepted.
[Ajmera Shyam v. Kova Laxmi, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1723, decided on 14-8-2025]
*Judgment authored by- Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: B. Rajendran, Senior Advocate; Dama Seshadri Naidu, Senior Advocate; Somanadri Goud Katam, AOR; Neha Agarwal, Advocate; Rahul Jayapal Reddy, Advocate; Sirajuddin, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Vipin Sanghi, Senior Advocate; P. Mohith Rao, AOR; J. Akshitha, Advocate; Eugene S Philomene, Advocate; J Venkat Sai, Advocate.
