1. Election challenge based on non-disclosure of a past conviction in the nomination form under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and Conduct of Election Rules. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 1143
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.ABDUL NAZEER, V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.
Ravi Namboothiri - Appellants
Versus
K.A. Baiju & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 8261-8262 OF 2022 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) Nos.30849-30850 of 2018)
Decided on : 09-11-2022
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ragenth Basant,Adv. Mr. Krishna Dev Jagarlamudi, AOR Ms. Roopali Lakhotia,Adv. Mr. Ajay Krishna,Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. P.V.Surendranath,Sr.Adv. Mr. Sawan Kumar Shukla,Adv. Mr. Subhash Chandran K.R.,Adv. Ms. Krishana L.R.,Adv. Ms. Resmitha R. Chandran, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ragenth Basant,Adv. Mr. Krishna Dev Jagarlamudi, AOR Ms. Roopali Lakhotia,Adv. Mr. Ajay Krishna,Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. P.V.Surendranath,Sr.Adv. Mr. Sawan Kumar Shukla,Adv. Mr. Subhash Chandran K.R.,Adv. Ms. Krishana L.R.,Adv. Ms. Resmitha R. Chandran, AOR
Important Points
Non-disclosure of a conviction for a non-substantive offence under the Kerala Police Act, specifically regarding political protests (dharnas), does not constitute a 'corrupt practice' or 'fake' disclosure under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act sufficient to declare an election void.
Subject
Election Law - Local Body Elections
Act Referred
CONDUCT OF ELECTION RULES: R.4
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.243(k), Art.32, Art.141, Art.142, Art.324
INDIAN PENAL CODE: S.143, S.283, S.447, S.149, S.463
KERALA PANCHAYAT RAJ ACT: S.102, S.120(2)
Kerala Panchayat Raj Conduct of Election Rules: R.6
KERALA POLICE ACT: S.38, S.52
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT: S.33(a), S.100
States Reorganisation Act: S.5(2)
TAMIL NADU PANCHAYATS ACT: S.260, S.259
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.243(k), Art.32, Art.141, Art.142, Art.324
INDIAN PENAL CODE: S.143, S.283, S.447, S.149, S.463
KERALA PANCHAYAT RAJ ACT: S.102, S.120(2)
Kerala Panchayat Raj Conduct of Election Rules: R.6
KERALA POLICE ACT: S.38, S.52
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT: S.33(a), S.100
States Reorganisation Act: S.5(2)
TAMIL NADU PANCHAYATS ACT: S.260, S.259
Headnote
ELECTION LAW - Panchayat Raj Act - Section 102(1)(ca) - Nondisclosure of conviction under Kerala Police Act - Whether amounts to 'undue influence' - Held, No.
Fact of the Case:
Appellant, an elected councilor of Ward No.5 of Annamanada Gram Panchayath, was convicted for disobedience of directions issued by a police officer under Section 38 read with Section 52 of the Kerala Police Act, 1960. He failed to disclose this conviction in Form No.2A, as required by Rule 6 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1995. Respondent No.1 filed an Election Petition challenging the appellant's election on the ground that the nondisclosure amounted to 'undue influence' and violated Section 52(1A) read with Section 102(1)(ca) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. The District Court and the High Court declared the appellant's election void.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the nondisclosure of the appellant's conviction under the Kerala Police Act did not amount to 'undue influence' or a violation of Section 52(1A) read with Section 102(1)(ca) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. The Court noted that the Kerala Police Act is aimed at better regulation of the police force and does not create substantive offences. The Court also noted that the appellant's conviction was for an offence related to holding a dharna in front of the Panchayat office, which is a form of protest and not a substantive offence. Therefore, the Court held that the appellant's failure to disclose his conviction did not materially affect the election and did not warrant declaring his election void.
Issues: Whether the nondisclosure of the appellant's conviction under the Kerala Police Act amounted to 'undue influence' or a violation of Section 52(1A) read with Section 102(1)(ca) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the nondisclosure of the appellant's conviction under the Kerala Police Act did not amount to 'undue influence' or a violation of Section 52(1A) read with Section 102(1)(ca) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. The Court noted that the Kerala Police Act is aimed at better regulation of the police force and does not create substantive offences. The Court also noted that the appellant's conviction was for an offence related to holding a dharna in front of the Panchayat office, which is a form of protest and not a substantive offence. Therefore, the Court held that the appellant's failure to disclose his conviction did not materially affect the election and did not warrant declaring his election void.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned orders, and dismissed the Election Petition filed by respondent No.1.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- election law
- crime and sentencing
Table of Contents
2. Whether non-disclosure of a petty conviction under the Kerala Police Act constitutes a corrupt practice or furnishing fake details sufficient to void an election. (Para 11 , 12 , 21 )
3. Distinction between substantive criminal offences and regulatory offences under the Kerala Police Act regarding the requirement for disclosure to ensure informed voting. (Para 7 , 10 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 47 )
4. Non-disclosure of convictions for non-substantive, regulatory offences under the Kerala Police Act does not constitute a ground to declare an election void. (Para 44 , 45 , 47 , 48 )
5. Appeals allowed, impugned orders set aside, and the election petition dismissed. (Para 48 )
6. Does the term fake in Section 102(1)(ca) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act include the non-disclosure of criminal antecedents?
Yes, the court held that when a person with criminal antecedents fails to make a true disclosure in Form 2A, they pass themselves off as a person without such antecedents, which falls within the meaning of the word fake. (Para 29 , 30 , 33 )
7. Does the requirement to disclose criminal cases at the time of nomination under Section 52(1A) include past convictions?
While Section 52(1A) specifies involvement at the time of nomination, Rule 6 and Form 2A specifically require the disclosure of past convictions. The court noted that Rule 6 extends the scope of disclosure beyond the strict wording of Section 52(1A). (Para 7 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 )
8. Is the non-disclosure of a conviction for a regulatory offence under the Kerala Police Act sufficient to void an election?
No. The court distinguished between substantive offences and regulatory offences. Since the objective of disclosure is to decriminalize politics, failure to disclose a conviction for a non-substantive offence under the Kerala Police Act for holding a dharna does not justify voiding an election. (Para 44 , 45 , 47 )
JUDGMENT :
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.
Leave granted.
2. Aggrieved by the Judgment passed by the High Court of Kerala, confirming an order passed by the Additional District Judge setting aside his election as Councilor of Ward No.5 of Annamanada Gram Panchayath, in the elections held in November-2015, the elected candidate has come up with the above appeals.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.
4. The brief facts essential for the disposal of the above appeals are as follows:
(i) On 5-11-2015, elections to the Annamanada Gram Panchayath were held. Apart from others, the appellant and respondent No.1 contested from Ward No.5.
(ii) On 7.11.2015, the appellant was declared as having been elected from Ward No.5.
(iii) Respondent No.1 filed an Election Petition on the file of the District Munsif Court, on 4.12.2015 challenging the election of the appellant.
(iv) By a Judgment dated 19.11.2016, the Election Petition was dismissed by the District Munsif Court, primarily on the ground that there was no prayer in the Election Petition to declare the election of the appellant as void, on the grounds stipulated in Section 102 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. There was actually a prayer for cancelling the election held on 5.11.2015.
(v) Aggrieved by the dismissal of the Election Petition, respondent No.1 filed an appeal in the Court of the Additional District Judge. The appeal was allowed by a Judgment dated 18.06.2018 and the election of the appellant was declared as void on the ground that the appellant suppressed in his nomination form, his involvement in a criminal case and that therefore he had committed a corrupt practice.
(vi) Aggrieved by the said judgment of the District Court, the appellant filed a revision petition before the High Court. The Revision Petition was dismissed by an Order dated 30.10.2018. The appellant filed a petition for review, but the same was also dismissed by the High Court. Therefore, challenging the order passed in the Revision Petition and the order passed in the Review Petition, the appellant has come up with two appeals.
5. The allegation that the appellant suppressed his involvement in a criminal case and thereby adopted a corrupt practice, arose under very peculiar circumstances, which are as follows:
(i) On the allegation that on 20.09.2006, a group of about 40 persons, which included the appellant herein, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and committed criminal trespass into the office compound of the Annamanada Gram Panchayath and put up a temporary shed for conducting a dharna, 22 persons were prosecuted before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chalakudy, for alleged offences under Sections 143, 283 and 447 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant herein was cited as accused No.1 and he was also prosecuted additionally for an offence under Section 38 read with Section 52 of the Kerala Police Act.
(ii) By a Judgment dated 07.06.2010 passed in CC No.1606 of 2006, the trial Court convicted only A1 and A2. The appellant herein who was A1, was convicted for the offence under Section 143 IPC and sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of three months together with a fine of Rs.2000/. He was also convicted for the offence under Section 283 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.200/. For the offence under Section 447, the appellant was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/. Additionally, the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 52 of the Kerala Police Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.200/.
(iii) The appellant as well as A2 filed a statutory appeal before the Sessions Court, Thrissur. By a Judgment dated 17.01.2012, the appeal was partly allowed and the conviction of the appellant for the offences under Sections 143, 447 and 283 read with Section 149 IPC was set aside. However, the conviction of the appellant herein for the offence under Section 38 read with Section 52
