JUDGMENT

V. Ramasubramanian, J.

As against a common order passed by the High Court of Kerala throwing out 2 election petitions filed by the petitioner herein, on the ground of incurable defects, the election petitioner has come up with the above Special Leave Petition. This SLP arises out of Election Petition No.4 of 2019. Another Election Petition filed by the very same petitioner against the very same common order, but arising out of Election Petition No.3 of 2019 was dismissed by this Court on 02.11.2020 for non-prosecution. Therefore, this order covers Election Petition No.4 of 2019.

2. Heard Ms. D. Geetha, learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. In the elections held to the Lok Sabha in April-May, 2019, the petitioner filed her nomination on 04.04.2019 in the Ernakulam Constituency. The petitioner was to contest as an independent candidate.

4. On 06.04.2019 the nomination of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that she was convicted in 2 criminal cases, one in CC No. 1300 of 2013 on the file of the JFMC-I, Pathanamthitta and another in CC No. 102 of 2014 on the file of the JFMC-I, Perumbavoor. In the first case the petitioner was imposed with a punishment of imprisonment for 3 years, with a fine of Rs.45 lakhs, by a judgment dated 08.06.2015. In the second case she was imposed with a punishment of imprisonment for 3 years, with a fine of Rs.10 lakhs, by a judgment dated 16.02.2016.

5. The petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 87 of 2015 before the Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta, against her conviction in CC No. 1300 of 2013. But the appeal was dismissed and the petitioner filed a revision before the High Court in Criminal R.P.No.9 of 2018. On 04.01.2018, the High Court merely suspended the execution of the sentence and enlarged the petitioner on bail, subject to her executing a bond for Rs.5 lakhs with 2 solvent sureties and also upon her depositing Rs. 10 lakhs towards the fine amount.

6. Similarly, the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.25 of 2017 before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam against her conviction in CC No. 102 of 2014. The Appellate Court stayed the execution of the sentence on condition of the appellant executing a bond for Rs. 1 lakh with 2 sureties.

7. The Returning Officer, noted in his order dated 06.04.2019 that the petitioner stood disqualified in terms of Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, as the period of disqualification had not lapsed.

8. Aggrieved by the order of rejection of the nomination, the petitioner filed an appeal to the Chief Electoral Officer. Thereafter, the petitioner moved a writ petition in W.P.(C)No. 11282 of 2019. But the Writ Petition was dismissed on 09.04.2019. The petitioner filed a writ appeal but the same was also dismissed on 12.04.2019.

9. Therefore, after the elections were over, the petitioner filed an election petition in Election Petition No.4 of 2019, primarily contending that the rejection of her nomination was illegal and unjustified and that such rejection materially altered the outcome of the election in which the Respondent herein was declared elected. The main contention of the petitioner in her election petition was that she had simultaneously filed a nomination in the Amethi Constituency of Uttar Pradesh and that despite disclosure of the very same information about her conviction and pendency of appeals, her nomination was accepted there. Therefore, she contended that 2 different yardsticks cannot be applied and that in any case, so long as the sentence of imprisonment remained suspended, the disqualification under Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, may not be attracted.

10. It is to be noted at this stage that the petitioner filed her nomination from one more constituency, namely Wayanad Constituency and her nomination was rejected even in the said Constituency, for the very same reasons. Therefore, she filedan other election petition in Election Petition No.3 of 2019 as regards the election from the Wayanad Constitu