2023 Supreme(Gau) 710

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH AT ITANAGAR BENCH
NANI TAGIA, J.
Nuney Tayang S/o Late Posu Tayang – Petitioner
Versus
Karikho Kri S/o Late Sotri Kri – Respondent
Election Petition No. 01(AP) of 2019
Decided On : 17-07-2023

Non-disclosure of assets (such as registered vehicles) and government accommodation in the mandatory election affidavit constitutes a substantial defect and a corrupt practice of "undue influence," rendering the nomination improperly accepted and the subsequent election of the returned candidate void.

Headnote:(A) Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Sections 33, 36, 100(1)(b), 100(1)(d)(i), 100(1)(d)(iv), and 123(2) - Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 - Rule 4A, Form 26 - Non-disclosure of assets and liabilities in the mandatory affidavit - Disclosure of motor vehicles, government accommodation, and government dues is fundamental to free and fair elections to ensure voters make an informed choice - Non-disclosure of vehicles registered in the name of the candidate, spouse, or dependents is a substantial lapse rendering the nomination paper liable for rejection (Paras 18(iii)(b), 18(iii)(c))

(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 2(30) and Section 50 - Definition of "owner" - The person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered is treated as the owner for the purposes of the Act - Purported transfer of ownership via gift deeds or sale deeds without corresponding updates in the official registration records does not absolve the registered owner of the duty to disclose the asset in the election affidavit (Paras 13(xiii)(b), 13(xiii)(c))

(C) Corrupt Practice - Section 123(2), Representation of the People Act, 1951 - False declarations or suppression of material information regarding assets of the candidate, spouse, or dependents constitute "undue influence" and amount to a corrupt practice, irrespective of the impact of such false declaration on the election result (Paras 19(ii)(b), 19(ii)(c), 19(ii)(d))

(D) Improper Acceptance of Nomination - Section 100(1)(d)(i), Representation of the People Act, 1951 - If the nomination of the returned candidate is found to have been improperly accepted, there is no necessity to prove that the result of the election was materially affected, as the returned candidate would not have been able to contest the election if the nomination had been correctly rejected (Paras 20(ii)(s), 20(ii)(t))

Facts of the case:
An election petition was filed challenging the election of the returned candidate on grounds of improper acceptance of the nomination paper. It was alleged that the candidate failed to disclose certain motor vehicles registered in his own name, his spouse's name, and his son's name in the mandated Form 26 affidavit. Further allegations included the non-disclosure of government accommodation occupied by the candidate and the failure to submit required "No Dues Certificates," as well as making contradictory statements regarding municipal and property tax liabilities in different parts of the affidavit.

Findings of Court:
The court found that three vehicles remained registered in the names of the candidate and his family at the time of scrutiny, and their non-disclosure was a substantial defect. The candidate's failure to disclose government accommodation and the lack of no dues certificates also constituted a substantial defect. Additionally, the discrepancy between the detailed liabilities in Part A and the "NIL" declaration in the abstract in Part B of the affidavit was held to be a false statement. However, the allegation regarding the mother's land failed as she was not pleaded as a dependent.

Issues: Whether the non-disclosure of vehicles, government accommodation, and contradictory liability statements in the Form 26 affidavit constituted substantial defects rendering the nomination invalid, and whether such non-disclosures amounted to the corrupt practice of undue influence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the registered owner under the Motor Vehicles Act is the legal owner regardless of private transfer agreements. Truthful disclosure in Form 26 is a mandatory duty to the voters; thus, suppressing assets and government accommodation details constitutes a substantial defect. Under the law, such false declarations are deemed a corrupt practice of undue influence. Since the returned candidate's nomination was improperly accepted, the election is void without needing further proof of material effect on the vote count.

Result: Election of the returned candidate declared void under Section 100(1)(b), 100(1)(d)(i), and (iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.