The failure to disclose the details of the pending criminal case is a corrupt practice, and the court directed the Secretary of the Legislative Council of Andhra Pradesh to make a reference to the President of India for further action. The respondent was also held liable for prosecution under Section 125-A.

ORDER :

PRELUDE:

‘At the bottom of all the tributes paid to democracy is the little man walking into a little booth making a little cross on a little piece of paper…’

2. This famous quote of a British leader was referred to by his Lordship Justice Krisha Iyer in para 8 of Ramakrishna Hegde v. Election Commission of India, (1980) 3 SCC 286 case.

3. This little Indian‘s desire to know; to be fully aware of the antecedents of his elected representatives so as to make an informed choice is the crux of the matter. This desire of the ‘little Indian’ to know; to be fully aware is supported and encouraged by a large number of proactive judgments of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India.

4. Facts/Backdrop

This Election Petition is filed for the following prayer:

(a) Declare the election of the 1st respondent as elected from Prakasam –Nellore- Chittoor Graduates Constituency in the biennial elections held to Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council, on 09.03.2017 as illegal, null and void.

(b) Declare the acceptance of the nomination paper filed by the 1st Respondent/the Returned candidate with substantial defects in the affidavit as illegal improper and consequently set aside/ reject the same.

(c) Direct recount and scrutiny of all the ballot papers.

(d) Declare the petitioner as duly elected from Prakasam-Nellore-Chittoor Graduates Constituency in the biennial elections held to Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council on 09.03.2017.

(e) Award costs of the election petition.

5. The respondent has entered appearance and the main contesting respondents have filed counters. Issues were framed on 28.07.2022; 01.08.2002 amended) and finally on 31.11.2022 after the amendment of the petition was allowed. The following issues were framed:

Issues framed on 28.07.2022:

i. Whether the nomination of the 1st respondent was improperly accepted by the Returning Officer and the same has materially affected the election?

ii. Whether the Returning Officer improperly accepted the nomination with blanks in the verification?

iii. Whether the blank in the verification of nomination form is a defect of substantial nature?

iv. Whether the usage of stamp papers by the 1st respondent, which were purchased by the 3rd party is a ‘fraud’ as alleged?

v. Whether there were irregularities during the process of counting of the ballots which have affected the result?

vi. Whether about 11,000 votes polled were improperly rejected/refused? (Amended on 01.08.2022)

vii. To what relief?

6. Issues framed on 30.11.2022:

(i) Whether the failure of the returned candidate (R.1) to disclose the fact that he was accused of offences has vitiated the affidavit filed?

(ii) Whether as a result of the failure to disclose the criminal cases, election result of the returned candidate is required to be declared as void?

7. The trial commenced and continued at its own pace. However, the period or the term of the Council members elected in 2017 including respondent No.1 expired in February, 2023. Therefore, it was urged that by virtue of the expiry of the six year term of the 1st respondent by February, 2023, no reliefs can be granted in the election petition and that it has become infructuous. Arguments were also advanced on this aspect. Case law is also submitted on merits. This Court agrees that in view of the expiry of the term, the other prayers cannot be granted/need not be granted, but in view of the amendment of the pleadings and the evidence on the issue of suppression of criminal antecedents however, this Court, notices that the issue mentioned hereafter still survives for passing orders:- ‘The failure of the 1st respondent to disclose the fact that he was accused of an offence in his nomination form and its consequence is the core issue that still remains for consideration’.

8. The draft issues filed by the petitioner include the following:

(I) Whether the election of respondent No.1 was materially affected on account of;

(a) Improper acceptance of nomination filed by respondent No.1 without there being a signature a