S. Rukmini Madegowda vs State Election Commission

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 934

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI., Indira Banerjee, Ajay Rastogi, JJ.
S. Rukmini Madegowda - Appellant
Versus
The State Election Commission & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6576 of 2022 (Arising Out Of S.L.P. (C) NO. 7414 of 2021)
Decided On : 14-09-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Amrita Sharma, Adv. Mr. Darpan K.M., Adv. Mr. Rajat J. Shaw, Adv. Ms. Rashi Bansal, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, AOR Mr. Vaibhav Sabharwal, Adv. Mr. Vinayaka S. Pandit, Adv. Mr. Sudhanshu Prakash, Adv. Mr. Rajan Parmar, Adv.

Headnote:
Corrupt Practice - Election Dispute - Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, Sections 33, 34, 35, 39, 123(2) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 - The court discussed the legal provisions of the KMC Act and the 1951 RP Act, emphasizing the definition of corrupt practices and undue influence. The court upheld the power of the State Election Commission to issue directions for disclosure of assets by candidates and their spouses, as it falls within the contours of law. The judgment affirmed the decision of the High Court, setting aside the election of the Appellant due to corrupt practices.
Fact of the Case:

The Appellant, elected as a Councillor, had her election set aside due to corrupt practices under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976. The Respondent alleged that the Appellant made false declarations in her affidavit of assets, leading to the election dispute.
Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the Appellant's false declaration of her husband's assets constituted corrupt practices, violating the KMC Act and the 1951 RP Act. The Court upheld the power of the State Election Commission to issue directions for asset disclosure, affirming the decision of the High Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that non-disclosure of assets by the Appellant constituted corrupt practices, as defined in the KMC Act and the 1951 RP Act. The Court affirmed the power of the State Election Commission to issue directions for asset disclosure, as it falls within the contours of law.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the decision of the High Court to set aside the Appellant's election due to corrupt practices. The Court upheld the power of the State Election Commission to issue directions for asset disclosure.

JUDGMENT :

Indira Banerjee, J.

Leave granted.

2. This Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India is against a judgment and order dated 26th May 2021 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, upholding the judgment and order dated 14th December 2020 of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, allowing Election Petition No.4 of 2018 and setting aside the election of the Appellant to the Mysore Municipal Corporation as Councillor from Ward No.36-Yeraganahalli, Karnataka.

3. Sometime in 2018, the Appellant filed her nomination for election to the Mysore Municipal Corporation, as Councillor from Ward No.36-Yeraganahalli in Karnataka, which was reserved for Backward Class-B (Women), along with a declaration by way of an affidavit, furnishing details of the movable and immovable properties held by the Appellant as well as her spouse and dependents, which is hereinafter referred to as the “Affidavit of Assets”.

4. In August 2018, elections to the Mysore Municipal Corporation were held. On 3rd September 2018, the results of said elections were declared. The Appellant was declared as successfully elected Councillor from the said Ward No.36, that is Yeraganahalli.

5. The Respondent No.4, an unsuccessful candidate, filed Election Petition No.4 of 2018 in the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru under Sections 33 and 34 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, hereinafter referred to as the “KMC Act”.

6. In the said Election Petition, the Respondent No.4 alleged that the Appellant had, in her Affidavit of Assets, falsely declared that her husband did not possess any immovable property, and that by giving such false declaration, the Appellant had indulged in corrupt practices to get the benefit of reservation under the Category of Backward Class-B (Women).

7. By a judgment and order dated 16th April 2019, the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru (Trial Court) rejected the said Election Petition No.4 of 2018 filed by the Respondent No.4.

8. The Respondent No.4 filed an appeal being Miscellaneous First Appeal No.4023 of 2019 in the High Court of Karnataka, challenging the said judgment and order dated 16th April 2019 passed by the Trial Court.

9. By an order dated 28th April 2020, the High Court remanded Election Petition No.4 of 2018 back to the Trial Court, for reconsideration, in the light of the judgments of this Court in Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms, (2002) 5 SCC 294 and in Lok Prahari v. Union of India, (2018) 4 SCC 699. The High Court observed:

“…This Court is of the considered opinion that for complete adjudication of the lis the trial court should have considered such question with reference to the relevant provisions of the KMC Act and the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and another vs Union of India and in Lok Prahari Vs. Union of India and Others.”

10. Thereafter, by a judgment and order dated 14th December 2020, the Trial Court allowed the Election Petition No.4 of 2018 and set aside the election of the Appellant.

11. On or about 23rd December 2020, the Appellant filed an appeal in the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, under Section 38 of the KMC Act, which was admitted and registered as MFA No.49 of 2021. The High Court has dismissed the Appeal, being MFA No.49 of 2021 by the judgment and order dated 26th May 2021, impugned in this appeal.

12. Mr. Shyam Diwan, appearing on behalf of the Appellant, submitted that the Appellant was successful in the Municipal election for Ward No.36, Yeraganahalli in the Mysore City Corporation, and was accordingly chosen as the Mayor of the Mysore City Corporation and she continues to be the sitting Mayor.

13. Mr. Diwan argued that while the Respondent No.4 secured 2902 votes, the Appellant secured 3295 votes. Mr. Diwan emphasized on the fact that the Election Petition had initially been di