IMPORTANT POINTS
Knowingly not furnishing correct educational qualifications in Form 26 is false affidavit and therefore constitutes substantial defect nomination paper.
Improper acceptance of nomination paper of the returned candidate where there are only two candidates are in the fray may result in declaration of setting aside of the election of the returned candidate.
If the election petitioner contested the election on behalf of one party but on being defeated joins another party, he cannot be declared elected even on the election of the returned candidate being set aside.

Headnote:Civil Appeal No. 2649 of 2016
       (a) Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Sections 33, 33-A r/w Rule 4 (A) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, Form 26 and Article 19(1), Constitution of India – Declaration of educational qualifications – Voter has a fundamental right to educational qualifications f candidates for deciding whom to vote – Candidates are duty bound to give correct information about their educational qualifications. (Para 14, 15, 16, 17)
       (2003) 4 SCC 399; (2002) 5 SCC 294; (2014) 14 SCC 189; (2014) 14 SCC 162 – Relied upon
       (2003) 8 SCC 613; (2012) 3 SCC 314; (2012) 11 SCC 390 – Referred
       (b) Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 – Rule 4-A and From 26 r/w section 36, Representation of People Act, 1951 – Candidate duty bound to give correct educational qualifications – Instantly appellant mentioning MBA from Mysore University which he never did – Mentioning same qualification in 2008 election – Not a clerical error – Not rectifying the same even upon given an opportunity – Such information in the affidavit in Form 26 would amount to false declaration – A false declaration is substantial defect. (Para 17, 18)
       (d) Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Section 100(1)(d) – Improper acceptance of nomination paper – If materially affecting the election, can be a ground for setting aside the election – In case of only two candidates if nomination of one is rejected, the other is automatically declared elected – Therefore once it is held that nomination of returned candidate was accepted improperly, the election petitioner does not have to show how it materially affected the election result. (Para 20, 21, 22)
       (1973) 2 SCC 45; 1995 Supp (1) SCC 422; (1955) 1 SCR 509; (2014) 14 SCC 162 – Relied upon
       Civil Appeal No. 2829 of 2016
       (e) Representation of People Act, 1951 – Section 80(A) – Election petitioner seeking setting aside of election of the returned candidate and declaration of him being elected – High Court setting aside election of returned candidate but not declare the election petitioner elected – Election petitioner contesting election as NCP candidate – On declaration of result changing affiliation to BJP – His declaration as elected would create an anomalous situation – He contested election as NCP candidate but if declared elected, would be an MLA of BJP without contesting election as such – High Court rightly not declaring him elected. (Para 29)
       (1997) 7 SCC 535; (2001) 8 SCC 233 – Relied upon
       Facts of the case:
       The Appellant belonging to the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) and the Respondent who was sponsored by the Indian National Congress (INC) filed their nominations within the time prescribed for election to the 10th Manipur Legislative Assembly on 04.01.2012. No other nomination was filed.
       The Respondent objected to the nomination of the Appellant at the time of scrutiny on the ground that a false declaration relating to educational qualification was made by the Appellant.
       The Returning Officer directed the Appellant to submit documents in proof of his educational qualification as declared in the affidavit filed under Form 26.
       The Appellant failed to produce any document to prove his educational qualification in spite of which the Returning Officer accepted the nomination of the Appellant. Polling took place on 28.01.2012 and the counting of votes was held on 06.03.2012. The result was declared on the same day. The Appellant secured 14,521 votes and the Respondent secured 13,363 votes. The Appellant was declared elected as MLA, Moirang Constituency.
       The High Court declared the election of the Appellant as void.
       Finding of the Court:
       High Court rightly decided the election petitions.
       Result: Appeals dismissed.

JUDGMENT

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.

CIVIL APPEAL No. 2649 of 2016

The Appellant has filed this appeal aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court of Manipur at Imphal by which his election to the Manipur Legislative Assembly from Moirang Assembly constituency was declared as void.

2. A Notification was issued for election to the 10th Manipur Legislative Assembly on 04.01.2012. The Appellant belonging to the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) and the Respondent who was sponsored by the Indian National Congress (INC) filed their nominations within the time prescribed. There was no other nomination filed. The Respondent objected to the nomination of the Appellant at the time of scrutiny on the ground that a false declaration relating to educational qualification was made by the Appellant. The Returning Officer directed the Appellant to submit documents in proof of his educational qualification as declared in the affidavit filed under Form 26. The Appellant failed to produce any document to prove his educational qualification in spite of which the Returning Officer accepted the nomination of the Appellant. Polling took place on 28.01.2012 and the counting of votes was held on 06.03.2012. The result was declared on the same day. The Appellant secured 14,521 votes and the Respondent secured 13,363 votes. The Appellant was declared elected as MLA, Moirang Constituency.

3. The Respondent challenged the election of the Appellant by filing an election petition in the Guwahati High Court seeking a declaration that the Appellant’s election was null and void, that the Respondent should be declared as duly elected and that a criminal proceeding should be directed to be initiated against the Appellant under Section 125-A and 127 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Apart from the ground of improper acceptance of nomination, the Respondent also alleged corrupt practices against the Appellant.

4. The Appellant denied the allegation of false declaration. According to the Appellant, the declaration made by him that he passed Master of Business Administration (MBA) in 2004 from Mysore University was a clerical error. The Respondent abandoned the allegation of corrupt practices and other electoral malpractices during the trial of the election petition in the High Court. The High Court framed six issues which are as follows:

i) “Whether the Returning Officer of 27th Moirang AC has illegally accepted the nomination paper of the respondent or not?

ii) Whether the election of the respondent had been materially affected by the acceptance of the nomination paper of the respondent by the R.O. of 27th Moirang A/C or not?

iii) Whether the respondent had filed false affidavit in respect of the highest education qualification in the Form, in which the respondent had mentioned “MBA Mysore University” or whether it was merely a clerical error?

iv) Whether the petition lacks material facts or not?

v) Whether the election petition is liable to be dismissed for not putting the words “attested to be true copy of the petition” on each and every page of the petition by the petitioner himself or not; or on any of the defects raised by the respondent in his written statement?

vi) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petition?”

5. Issue No. 5 pertains to attestation of the petition not being made properly. The objection raised by the Appellant to the maintainability of the election petition was that only the front page of the election petition had the words “Attested to be true copy.” Issue No. 5 was answered in favour of the Respondent. The High Court considered the main controversy pertaining to the filing of false affidavit regarding the educational qualification by the Appellant in a detailed manner. There is no doubt that the Appellant filed Form 26 in which he mentioned his educational qualification as MBA from Mysore University in 2004. After careful consideration of the material on record a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2016 Supreme(SC) 868

Cases Referred (12)