Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ.
Poonam – Petitioner
Versus
Dule Singh & Ors. – Respondents
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 12000 of 2025
Decided On : 06-11-2025
Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Section 100(1)(b) – Constitution of India – Article 19(1)(a) – Free exercise of electoral right by Voters – Once it is found that there has been non-disclosure of previous conviction by a candidate, it creates impediment in free exercise of electoral right by Voter – Voter is deprived of making informed and advised choice – It would be a case of suppression/non-disclosure by such candidate, which renders election void – Both Courts have concurrently found that petitioner failed to disclose her conviction without any justifiable reason – Discretion under Article 136 of Constitution of India does not deserve to be exercised in present case – Acceptance of her nomination form has been rightly held to be improper – Ultimately it is a matter of exercise of judicial discretion in given facts of the case, as to whether such non-disclosure is fatal or not – Petitioner had contested bye-election that had been occasioned by her removal and she lost the same – SLP dismissed. (Paras 20, 21, 24, 25 and 26)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner suffered a conviction under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. She, however, failed to disclose her conviction in the nomination form for the election to the post of Councillor. Her election was challenged by first respondent, and the trial Court unseated her from the post of Councillor holding her to be disqualified under the provisions of The Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961. Revision application preferred by the petitioner having been dismissed, she has preferred present Special Leave Petition.
Findings of Court:
Court is not persuaded to hold that petitioner has made out an exceptional case for this Court to hold that notwithstanding failure on part of petitioner to disclose her conviction leading to sentence of imprisonment of one year, such lapse should be condoned. Information furnished in her affidavit filed under Rule 24-A(1) of Rules of 1994 has been found to be incorrect and false.
Result : Special Leave Petition dismissed.
Key Points: - Failure to disclose a previous conviction creates an impediment in the free exercise of electoral rights by voters (!) (!) (!) . - Non-disclosure of criminal antecedents, including convictions with imprisonment of one year or more, is considered suppression of material information rendering the election void (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The correctness of the nominee’s affidavit and compliance with Rule 24-A of the Rules of 1994 is mandatory; non-compliance is a ground for challenging the election (!) (!) (!) . - Ultimately, it is a matter of judicial discretion whether non-disclosure is fatal, based on the facts of the case (!) (!) . - The acceptance of a nomination form with false or incomplete information is improper and can be declared void (!) (!) (!) . - A candidate sentenced to imprisonment for one year or more must disclose the conviction; failure to do so is treated as misinformation affecting the election (!) (!) (!) . - The principle that disclosure of criminal antecedents is a categorical imperative applies regardless of whether the offence is considered minor (!) (!) (!) . - The subsequent conduct of by-elections does not preclude adjudication on the merits when the petitioner’s rights remain protected by interim orders (!) (!) . - The scope of Article 136 does not allow intervention where no exceptional or grave injustice is shown (!) (!) (!) . - In the present case, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed for failing to disclose a conviction punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (!) .
JUDGMENT :
ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, J.
1. The petitioner suffered a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. She, however, failed to disclose her conviction in the nomination form for the election to the post of Councillor. Her election was challenged by the first respondent, and the trial Court unseated her from the post of Councillor holding her to be disqualified under the provisions of The Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961. The revision application preferred by the petitioner having been dismissed, she has preferred the present Special Leave Petition.
2. In the elections held for the post of Councillor at Nagar Parishad, Bhikangaon, the petitioner came to be elected from Ward No.5 securing the highest number of votes. Notification to that effect dated 04.10.2022 came to be issued. The first respondent filed an election petition under Section 20 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter, “the Act of 1961”) read with The Madhya Pradesh Nagar Palika Nirvachan Niyam, 1994 (hereinafter “the Rules of 1994”) and sought a declaration that the petitioner be held disqualified for holding the post of Councillor and that her seat be declared as vacant. In the election petition, it was pleaded by the first respondent that on 07.08.2018, the petitioner had been convicted in proceedings filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter, “the Act of 1881”). She had been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also ordered to pay compensation. The fact of her conviction, however, had not been disclosed by the petitioner in the affidavit filed along with the nomination form as required by Rule 24-A of the Rules of 1994. Though other grounds of challenge were also raised, same are not relevant for the present purpose. It was thus prayed that the petitioner be declared disqualified from holding the post of Councillor.
3. The petitioner filed her reply and opposed the election petition by raising a plea that the order of conviction dated 07.08.2018 was no longer in existence as the same had set aside in appeal. She stated that the election petition was liable to be dismissed as she had not incurred any disqualification as mentioned in Section 35 of the Act of 1961.
4. The parties led evidence before the trial Court and after considering the same, the learned Judge of the trial Court held that the petitioner had been convicted under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 which fact had not been disclosed in the affidavit filed along with the nomination form. It was further held that since it was mandatory on the part of a candidate to disclose if he/she had suffered any conviction, the voters had a right to obtain correct information. As the conviction of the petitioner was not mentioned in her affidavit, it was clear that this had affected the voters from Ward No.5. The election of the petitioner was held to be materially affected. It was thus concluded that since the petitioner failed to disclose the fact of her conviction in her affidavit, she was disqualified from continuing as a Councillor. By the judgment dated 17.02.2025, the election of the petitioner was set aside holding her to be disqualified for holding the post of Councillor from Ward No.5. Her election was declared null and void.
5. The petitioner being aggrieved by her disqualification challenged the same by filing a revision application before the High Court under Section 26 (2) of the Act of 1961. One of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner was that the order of conviction had been set aside on 30.12.2022 and hence the same could not be the basis for unseating her. It was also urged that the first respondent had failed to prove that the election of the petitioner had been materially affected on account of non-compliance of the provisions of Rule 24-A of the Rules of 1994. The learned Judge of the High Court held that the petitioner had failed to disclose the fact of her con
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
