Candidates must fully disclose criminal cases and asset details during elections, as failure constitutes corrupt practice under the Representation of People Act, impacting informed voting.

JUDGMENT :

J.J. Munir, J.

Order on Civil Misc. Application No.6 of 2022

1. This is an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the Code') read with Order VI Rule 16 of the Code, seeking a rejection of the election petition, as one not disclosing a triable cause of action. The application has been made by Mohan, the returned candidate.

2. The election petition has been instituted by Ranvijay Singh, an unsuccessful candidate, who staked his claim for election to the Legislative Assembly from the 334-Hata, Kushinagar Assembly Constituency, that went to hustings, along with others, pursuant to a notification dated 04.02.2022 issued by the Governor of the State in the exercise of his powers under Section 15 (2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act of 1951').

3. Shorn of unnecessary detail, suffice it to say that the process of election, that commenced for the Assembly Constituency in question on 04.02.2022, ended on 12.03.2022, with a declaration of the election being complete. The result was announced on 10.03.2022. The petitioner had contested the elections as a candidate of the Samajwadi Party, whereas the returned candidate contested it as a candidate of the Bharatiya Janata Party. The returned candidate secured 1,20,660 votes whereas the petitioner received 61,301 votes. He was defeated by a margin of 59,365 votes.

4. Aggrieved, this election petition was instituted by the petitioner in person on 23.04.2022 along with tender of the requisite security money. The petition was instituted by the petitioner as aforesaid by presenting it to the learned In-charge Registrar General. After nomination by His Lordship the Chief Justice, it came up before me on 30.05.2022, when it was entertained by a detailed order and notice issued to the respondent (returned candidate). On 13.07.2022, the returned candidate put in appearance and moved an application, seeking four weeks' time to file a written statement. It was allowed. On 16.08.2022, the present application under Order VII Rule 11(a) read with Order VI Rule 16 of the Code was made. In due course, it was numbered as Civil Misc. Application No.6 of 2022. Again eschewing unnecessary detail about other proceedings, that were afoot contemporaneously, the hearing of this application was attended by terse, hairsplitting and prolix arguments.

5. Heard Mr. Narendra Kumar Pandey, learned Counsel for the returned candidate in support of the application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Order VI Rule Rule 16 of the Code and Mr. Ravi Shankar Prasad, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Jeetendra Singh, learned Counsel for the election petitioner.

6. The foremost submission that has been urged on behalf of the returned candidate by Mr. N.K. Pandey is that it is the petitioner's case that the returned candidate, while filing his nomination on 07.02.2022, deliberately did not disclose and suppressed material facts regarding the criminal cases pending against him as also the full details of his movable and immovable property. All these particulars, he did not disclose on affidavit filed in Form-26 appended to the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 (for short, 'the Rules of 1961'). This non-disclosure and deliberate suppression, according to the petitioner, constitutes corrupt practice by undue influence as defined under Section 123 of the Act and within the mischief of Section 100 (1)(b). Mr. Pandey submits that the el