2024 Supreme(SC) 325

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, SANJAY KUMAR, JJ.
Karikho Kri – Appellant
Versus
Nuney Tayang and Another – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4615 Of 2023 With Civil Appeal No. 4716 of 2023
Decided On : 09-04-2024

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Election petition – Success of a winning candidate at an election should not be lightly interfered with.
(2) There is no absolute mandate that every non-disclosure, irrespective of its gravity and impact, would automatically amount to a defect of substantial nature, thereby materially affecting result of election or amounting to ‘undue influence’ so as to qualify as a corrupt practice.

Headnote:

(A) Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Sections 100(1)(b), 100(1)(d)(i) and 100(1)(d)(iv) – Election petition – Void election – Non-disclosure of true assets – Success of a winning candidate at an election should not be lightly interfered with – Mere failure to get registered name of new owner of an already registered vehicle does not mean that the sale/gift transaction would stand invalidated and such a vehicle, despite being physically handed over to new owner, cannot be treated as still being in possession and control of former owner – Once it is accepted that three vehicles in question were either gifted or sold before filing of nomination by appellant, said vehicles cannot be considered to be still owned by appellant’s wife and son for purposes other than those covered by Act of 1988 – Such non-disclosure cannot be treated as an attempt on his part to unduly influence voters, thereby inviting wrath of Section 123(2) of Act of 1951.(Paras 16, 27 and 28)

(B) Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Section 100(1)(d)(i) – Election petition – Corrupt practice – If acceptance of a nomination is found to be improper and it materially affects result of election in so far as returned candidate is concerned, Section 100(1)(d)(i) of Act of 1951 would come into play – Every defect in nomination cannot straightaway be termed to be of such character as to render its acceptance improper and each case would have to turn on its own individual facts, insofar as that aspect is concerned – This Court has always drawn a distinction between non-disclosure of substantial issues as opposed to insubstantial issues, which may not impact one’s candidature or result of an election – There is no absolute mandate that every non-disclosure, irrespective of its gravity and impact, would automatically amount to a defect of substantial nature, thereby materially affecting result of election or amounting to ‘undue influence’ so as to qualify as a corrupt practice – In case on hand, there were no actual outstanding dues payable by appellant in relation to government accommodation occupied by him earlier – His failure in disclosing fact that he had occupied such accommodation and in filing ‘No Dues Certificate’ in that regard, with his nomination form, cannot be said to be a defect of any real import – It is not necessary that a candidate declare every item of movable property that he or his dependent family members owns, such as, clothing, shoes, crockery, stationery and furniture, etc., unless same is of such value as to constitute a sizeable asset in itself or reflect upon his candidature, in terms of his lifestyle, and require to be disclosed – Judgment and Order passed by High Court set aside and election of appellant as returned candidate upheld. (Paras 28, 40, 42, 44 and 51)

Facts of the case:

By judgment and order dated 17.07.2023, a Judge of Itanagar Bench of High Court allowed election petition in part, declaring election of Karikho Kri void under Sections 100(1)(b), 100(1) (d)(i) and 100(1)(d)(iv) of Act of 1951, but rejecting prayer of Nuney Tayang to declare him duly elected, as he had not led any evidence to prove allegations levelled by him against Dr. Mohesh Chai, candidate with second highest number of votes.

Findings of Court:

High Court was in error in concluding that sufficient grounds were made out under Sections 100(1)(b), 100(1)(d)(i) and 100(1)(d)(iv) of Act of 1951 to invalidate election of Karikho Kri and, further, in holding that non-disclosure of three vehicles, that still remained registered in names of his wife and son as on the date of filing of his nomination, amounted to a ‘corrupt practice’ under Section 123(2) of the Act of 1951. In consequence, we find no necessity to independently deal with Civil Appeal No. 4716 of 2023 filed by Nuney Tayang, in the context of denial of relief to him by High Court, or issues raised by Dr. Mohesh Chai in replies filed by him.

Result : Civil Appeals partly allowed.