Non-disclosure of income in tax returns is not a substantial defect under election law, hence does not render an election void; minor omissions do not equate to corrupt practices.

JUDGMENT :

NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, J.

1. The present civil appeal has been filed under Section 116A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), against the impugned judgment and order dated 25.10.2024 passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, whereby, the High Court dismissed the Election Petition No. 10/2024 preferred by the Appellant herein, Ajmera Shyam, the election petitioner.

2. The issue which arose for consideration in the said election petition, and which has been canvassed before us is whether non-disclosure of the income as shown in the income tax return for four financial years out of the last five financial years in the Form 26 Affidavit, while submitting the nomination paper by the Respondent No.1, Smt. Kova Laxmi, the returned candidate and acceptance of the said nomination by the Returning Officer would amount to improper acceptance of her nomination and/or whether such non-disclosure would amount to a corrupt practice by the returned candidate. Further, whether such non- disclosure would amount to non-compliance of the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and rules or orders made under the said Act, thus, rendering the election of Respondent No. 1 liable to be declared void under Section 100 of the Act, at the instance of the unsuccessful candidate being the Appellant herein.

3. The High Court rejected the election petitioner's arguments, holding that the omission of income details in the income tax return for four out of the last five financial years is not of a significant nature. Based on this, the election of Respondent No. 1 cannot be declared null and void under Section 100 of the Act. It was also concluded that such non-disclosure does not constitute a corrupt practice that would have materially affected the outcome of the election.

Furthermore, the High Court found that Respondent No. 1 did not deliberately suppress information, and therefore, there is no corrupt practice or undue influence on the voters. Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the election petition, and the election petitioner is now before us, challenging the said dismissal.

4. FACTS IN BRIEF:

4.1 Before we proceed to examine the issue(s), it would be apposite to briefly refer to the facts of the case as can be culled out from the pleadings.

4.2 Prior to the impugned election of 2023, Respondent No.1 was a member of the Legislative Assembly for the State of Telangana from the Asifabad Assembly Constituency (ST) (hereinafter referred to as the “Constituency”) for the period 2014-2018. Subsequently, in 2019, Respondent No.1 contested the elections to the Zilla Parishad Territorial Constituency (ZPTC) and was elected as a ZPTC Member on 02.05.2019. She was then elected as the Chairperson of Kumuram Bheem Zilla Parishad, Asifabad, and continued in that role until 03.12.2023, before being re-elected as an MLA, which is the subject matter of this challenge.

4.3 Upon notification of the General Election to the Telangana Legislative Assembly by the Election Commission of India in 2023, Respondent No.1 submitted her nomination along with the required Form 26 Affidavit on 09.11.2023, as a nominee of the Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) Party. There were a total of 17 candidates contesting from the constituency, including the Appellant (as a nominee of the Indian National Congress) and Respondent No.1.

4.4 The polling was held on 30.11.2023, and the result of the said election was declared on 03.12.2023. The Respondent No.1 had secured 83