1. Disqualification of candidates by the State Election Commission for alleged failure to submit election expenditure details under the Karnataka Municipalities (Election of Councillors) Rules, 1977. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 1537
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. Shah, Aniruddha Bose, JJ.
K. Srinivas & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
The Karnataka State Election Commission & Ors. – Respondents
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 10559 of 2022
Decided On : 09-06-2022
Important Points
Failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 22(C)(6) of the Karnataka Municipalities (Election of Councillors) Rules, 1977 led to the disqualification of the petitioners by the Election Commission.
Subject
Administrative Law - Election Law
Act Referred
KARNATAKA MUNICIPALITIES ELECTION OF COUNCILLORS RULES: R.22(c)(6)
Headnote
Show-Cause Notice - Disqualification of Candidates - Failure to Submit Election Expenditure Details - The court considered the failure of the petitioners to reply to the show-cause notice and submit the details of election expenditure as required under Rule 22(C)(6) of the Karnataka Municipalities (Election of Councillors) Rules, 1977. The petitioners challenged the disqualification order passed by the Election Commission based on the report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru, Urban District.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners submitted their reply to the show-cause notice and the statement of expenditure within two days of receiving the notice. The Election Commission passed an order disqualifying the petitioners based on the report that they did not submit the details of election expenditure.
Finding of the Court:
The court issued notice to the petitioners and permitted service of an advance copy to the counsel for the State Commission. The order was confined to the petitioners only.
Issues: Failure to reply to show-cause notice and submit election expenditure details, consideration of petitioners' submissions by the learned Single Judge and Division Bench.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the failure of the petitioners to comply with the requirements of Rule 22(C)(6) of the Karnataka Municipalities (Election of Councillors) Rules, 1977.
Final Decision: The court issued notice to the petitioners and permitted service of an advance copy to the counsel for the State Commission. The order was confined to the petitioners only.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
Ms. Vibha Dutta Makhija, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Mayank Jain, Advocate, Mr. Parmatma Singh, Advocate, Ms. Madhu Jain, Advocate, Mr. Bani Makhija, Advocate, Mr. Karan Mamgain, Advocate, For the Appellant.
Ms. Vibha Dutta Makhija, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Mayank Jain, Advocate, Mr. Parmatma Singh, Advocate, Ms. Madhu Jain, Advocate, Mr. Bani Makhija, Advocate, Mr. Karan Mamgain, Advocate, For the Appellant.
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners contend that the disqualification order was based on the erroneous premise that they failed to reply to the show-cause notice and submit expenditure statements. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
3. Notice issued to respondents with permission for dasti service, limited to the petitioners. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 )
ORDER
1. Ms. Vibha Dutta Makhija, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has submitted that the show-cause notice dated 27.01.2020 was served upon the petitioners 15.06.2020 and that within a period of two days, the petitioners ein did submit their reply to the show-cause notice along with the statement of expenditure as required to be furnished.
2. It is vehemently submitted that despite the above, the Election Commission has passed an order disqualifying the petitioners on the basis of the report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru, Urban District dated 11.10.2021 that 'even though notice has been issued by the Commission to the candidates who have not submitted the details of election expenditure, they have not submitted any explanation and also the details of the election expenditure.'
3. It is submitted that therefore, the entire order passed by the State Election Commission is on the footing and/or on the premise that the petitioners did not reply to the show-cause notice and did not make any representation as provided under Rule 22(C)(6) of the Karnataka Municipalities (Election of Councillors) Rules, 1977 and did not produce the details of election expenditure.
4. It is submitted that the aforesaid aspects have not been considered either by the learned Single Judge and/or by the Division Bench.
5. Issue notice, so far the petitioners are concerned, returnable on 15.06.2022.
6. Dasti, in addition, is permitted.
7. It is made clear that the present order shall be confined to the petitioners only. It will be open to the learned counsel for the petitioners, to serve one advance copy on the counsel appearing for the State Commission, who may be in the panel of the Supreme Court.
