Supreme Court of India
R.M. LODHA & SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA
Mangani Lal Mandal
Versus
Bishnu Deo Bhandari
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 10728 OF 2011
Decided on: 01-02-2012
(1964) 6 SCR 54; (1999) 1 SCC 666; (1999) 3 SCC 357 – Relied upon
(2002) 5 SCC 294; (2003) 4 SCC 399 – Referred
Facts of the case:
Election of the returned candidate was challenged under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the 1951 Act on the ground that the returned candidate suppressed the facts that he had two wives and the dependent children by marriage with his first wife. He did not disclose the assets and liabilities of his first wife and the dependent children born out of that wedlock.
High Court set aside election of the returned candidate.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned judgment is not sustainable.
Result: Appeal allowed with cost.
Judgment :-
R.M. Lodha, J.
The returned candidate -Mangani Lal Mandal -is in appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short, 1951 Act') aggrieved by the judgment dated November 25, 2011 of the Patna High Court whereby his election to the 15th Lok Sabha has been set aside.
2. The appellant - the returned candidate -contested the general Parliament election to the 15th Lok Sabha from 7, Jhanjharpur Parliamentary Constituency held on April 23, 2009. Altogether 12 candidates filed their nomination papers, including the appellant, as per the schedule fixed for conducting the said election. On May 16, 2009, the result of the above election was announced and the appellant was declared elected.
3. The respondent - Bishnu Deo Bhandari, a voter (hereinafter referred to as the 'election petitioner') - challenged the election of the returned candidate by filing the election petition before the Patna High Court. The election petitioner alleged that the returned candidate suppressed the facts in the affidavit that he filed alongwith his nomination papers that he had two wives and the dependent children by marriage with his first wife. He did not disclose the assets and liabilities of his first wife and the dependent children born out of that wedlock. The challenge to the election of the returned candidate was brought under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the 1951 Act and it was prayed that the election of the returned candidate be declared to be void.
4. The returned candidate traversed the averments made by the election petitioner and also raised diverse objections, inter alia, that the election petition did not disclose any cause of action nor it contained the concise statement of material facts.
5. The High Court, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed as many as seven issues and, after recording the evidence, held that the returned candidate failed to furnish information about his first wife and the dependents in the affidavit filed along with his nomination papers. The High Court heavily relied upon the two decisions of this Court in Union of India Vs. Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. ((2002) 5 SCC 294) and People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr. ((2003) 4 SCC 399) and held that the suppression of facts by the returned candidate with regard to the assets and liabilities of his first wife and the dependent children born out of that wedlock was breach of the Constitution viz. Article 19(1)(a) and for such breach and noncompliance, the candidate who has not complied with and breached the right to information of electors and has won the election has to suffer the consequence of such non-compliance and the breach. The High Court, in view of the above, set aside the election of the returned candidate from Jhanjharpur Parliamentary Constituency being void under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the 1951 Act.
6. We have heard Mr. A. Sharan, learned senior counsel for the appellant, and Mr. S.B.K. Manglam, learned counsel for the respondent.
7. The Appeal deserves to be allowed on the short ground which we indicate immediately hereinafter.
8. Section 100 of the 1951 Act provides for grounds for declaring election to be void. As we are concerned with Section 100(1)(d)(iv), the same is reproduced which reads as under :-
"100. Grounds for declaring election to be void.-(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) if the High Court is of opinion-
(a) x x x x
(b) x x x x
(c) x x x x
(d) that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a returned candidate, has been materially affected-
(i) x x x
(ii) x x x
(iii) x x x
(iv) by any non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or of this Act or any rules or orders made under this Act, the High Court shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void.
(2) x x x x"
9. A reading of the above provision with Section 83 of the 1951 Act leaves no manner of doubt that where a returned candida
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.