Back
2006 Supreme(MP) 4
2006 (2) JLJ 54
S.K. Seth. J.
Umang Singhar v. Chhattar Singh and others
Election Petition No. 13 of 2004;
Decided on 2.1.2006.
Anil Ojha for petitioner;
G.M. Chaphekar with D.S. Kale for respondents.
Headnote:(1) Constitution of India -- Art. 19 (1) (a) -- voters have the right to know relevant antecedents of candidates contesting the election -- this right is part of fundamental right. (2002) 5 SCC 294 followed.
(2) Representation of the People Act, 1951 -- S.33A (as inserted in 2002) provision is valid -- particulars of acquittal in criminal case -need not be disclosed by the candidate contesting the election.
Petitioner and respondent No.1 belong to reserved category (Scheduled tribe). Petitioner and respondent No.1 contested said election as candidates of Indian National Congress (I) party and Bhartiya Janta Party respectively. It may be mentioned that respondents No.2 to 4 also contested said election as Sarpajwadi Party, Bahujan Samaj Party and independent candidates. Respondent No.1 polled maximum number of votes and was declared elected, defeating petitioner and other respondents. Petitioner, the nearest rival candidate, lost the election by a margin of a few thousand votes. Hence, this petition under section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 ("the Act of 1951" for short) calling in question election of respondent No.1 on the sole ground that in the affidavit, respondent No.1 did not disclose details of his acquittal in ST No. 46 of 1990, therefore, he is guilty of suppressing materials. [Para 2
Held: From a bare perusal of provisions contained in this section it is clear that a prospective candidate is not required to disclose particulars of the criminal case in which he has been acquitted or discharged The Constitutional validity of section 33A has been upheld, (2003) 4 SCC 399 followed. [Para 11
In view of the authoritative decision of the Supreme Court and provisions of law as it exists. there is scarcely any merit in the election petition and we have no hesitation in holding that respondent No.1 was not required to disclose in the affidavit, details of criminal case (ST No. 46 of 1990) in which he was acquitted. As such, it could not be said that he is guilty of suppression of material facts or the Returning Officer in accepting nomination of respondent No.1 committed any illegality. It is also clear that nomination paper of respondent No. 1 was not liable to be rejected on that count as claimed by the petitioner in this petition, [Para 12
¼1½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 19 ¼1½ ¼d½ && ernkrkvksa dks fuokZpu yM+us okys vH;fFkZ;ksa dk lqlaxr iwoZo`Ùk tkuus dk vf/kdkj gS && ;g vf/kdkj ewy vf/kdkj dk Hkkx gSA ¼2002½ 5 ,l lh lh 294 vuqlfjrA
¼2½ yksd izfrfuf/kRo vf/kfu;e] 1951 && /kkjk 33d ¼lu~ 2002 esa ;Fkk var%LFkkfir½ && mica/k fof/kekU; gS && nkafMd ekeys esa nks"keqfDr dh fof‘kf"V;k¡ && fuokZpu yM+us okys vH;FkhZ }kjk izdV dh tkuk vko‘;d ughaA
;kph vkSj izR;FkhZ Ø- 1 vkjf{kr oxZ ¼vuqlwfpr tutkfr½ ds gSaA ;kph vkSj izR;FkhZ Ø- 1 us mDr fuokZpu Øe‘k% bafM;u us‘kuy dkaxzsl ¼ba½ ny rFkk Hkkjrh; turk ikVhZ dsa vH;fFkZ;ksa ds :i eas yM+k FkkA mYys[kuh; gS fd izR;FkhZ Ø- 2 ls 4 us Hkh mDr fuokZpu lektoknh ikVhZ] cgqtu lekt ikVhZ rFkk Lora= vH;fFkZ;ksa ds :i esa yM+k FkkA izR;FkhZ Ø- 1 dks vf/kdre la[;k esa er izkIr gq, vkSj ;kph rFkk vU; izR;FkhZx.k dks ijkftr djrs gq, og fuokZfpr ?kksf"kr fd;k x;kA fudVre izfr}a}h vH;FkhZ ;kph dqN gtkj erks ds varj ls fuokZpu gkj x;kA vr% izR;FkhZ Ø- 1 dk fuokZpu bl ,dek= vk/kkj ij iz‘uxr djrs gq, fd ‘kiFki= eas izR;FkhZ Ø- 1 us ls‘ku fopkj.k Ø- 46 lu~ 1990 esa viuh nks"keqfDr dk C;kSjk izdV ugha fd;k blfy, og lkexzh fNikus dk nks"kh gS] yksd izfrfuf/kRo vf/kfu;e] 1951 ¼la{ksi ds fy, lu~ 1951 dk vf/kfu;e½ dh /kkjk 81 ds v/khu ;g ;kfpdk Qkby dh xbZ gSA ¿ iSjk 2À
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % bl /kkjk esa varfoZ"V mica/kksa dsa ifj‘khyu ek= ls Li"V gS fd Hkkoh vH;FkhZ }kjk ,sls nkafMd ekeys dk C;kSjk izdV fd;k tkuk visf{kr ugha gS ftlesa og nks"keqDr ;k mUeqDr fd;k x;k gSA /kkjk 33d dh lkafo/kkfud fof/kekU;rk ekU; BgjkbZ xbZ gSA ¼2003½ 4 ,l lh lh 399 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 11À
mPpre U;k;ky; dsa izkf/kdkjiw.kZ fofu‘p; rFkk ;Fkk fo|eku fof/k ds mica/kksa dh n`f"V ls fuokZpu ;kfpdk esa fu‘p; gh dksbZ xq.k ugha gS rFkk gesa ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr djus esa dksbZ ladksp ugha gS fd izR;FkhZ Ø-1 }kjk ‘kiFki= eas nkafMd ekeys ¼ls‘ku fopkj.k Ø- 46 lu~ 1990½ dk C;kSjk] ftlesa og nks"keqDr fd;k x;k Fkk] izdV fd;k tkuk visf{kr ugha FkkA bl izdkj] ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd og rkfRod rF; fNikus dk nks"kh gS ;k fjVfuZax vf/kdkjh us izR;FkhZ Ø- 1 dk ukefunsZ‘ku Lohdkj dj dksbZ voS/krk dh gSA ;g Hkh Li"V gS fd izR;FkhZ Ø- 1 dk ukefunsZ‘ku i= ml dkj.k ukeatwj fd, tkus ;ksX; ugha Fkk] tSlk ;kph }kjk bl ;kfpdk eas nkok fd;k x;k gSA ¿ iSjk 12À
0020
1. Petitioner, one of the defeated candidates, is questioning the election of respondent No.1 to House of People in the 14th General Elections. 2004 from Dhar Reserved Constituency No. 25 in the State of Madhya Pradesh.
2. Relevant facts are undisputed. Shorn of unnecessary details, they are as under:
Petitioner and respondent No.1 belong to reserved category (Scheduled tribe). Petitioner and respondent No.1 contested said election as candidates of Indian National Congress (1) party and Bhartiya Janta Party respectively. It may be mentioned that respondents No.2 to 4 also contested said election as Samajwadi Party, Bahujan Samaj Party and independent candidates. Respondent No.1 polled maximum number of votes and was declared elected, defeating petitioner and other respondents. Petitioner, the nearest rival candidate, lost the election by a margin of a few thousand votes. Hence, this petition under section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 ("the Act of 1951" for short) calling in question election of respondent No.1on the sole ground that in the affidavit, respondent No.1 did not disclose details of his acquittal in ST No. 46 of 1990, therefore, he is guilty of suppressing materials. The following relief are claimed:
A. Election of respondent No.1 from Dhar Constituency No. 25 to the 14th Lok Sabha 2004 be declared void and ineffective; and
B. Petitioner be declared as duly elected candidate from Dhar Constituency No. 25 of the 14th Lok Sabha 2004.
3. According to averments made in petition, the gravamen of charge levelled against respondent No.1 is that he at the time of filing of nomination paper did not mention or furnish particulars of criminal cases in the affidavit as is required under the law. According to petitioner, respondent No.1 is guilty of willful suppression of material facts relating to his criminal antecedents, therefore, his nomination paper was liable to be rejected in terms of the directions issued by the Election Commission in compliance of the order of Surpeme Court [(2002) 5 SCC 294]. The improper acceptance of nomination paper of respondent No.1 has materially affected result of election from Dhar Constituency No. 25. Thus, the election of respondent No.1 is liable to be declared void and petitioner, the nearest rival is entitled to be declared duly elected from said Constituency.
4. After notice, none of respondents, except respondent No.1, has put' in appearance to contest this petition. Respondent No.1 filed written statement and denied allegations made against him in the petition.
5. According to respondent No.1, he is not guilty of suppression of any material fact in the affidavit and his nomination paper was not liable to be rejected and that, too, when no such objection was taken by the petitioner at the time of scrutiny of nomination papers. It is further pointed that in the affidavit respondent No.1 had disclosed relevant particulars of the criminal case in which he was prosecuted and sentenced. According to him, subsequent to the decision of Supreme Court in (2002) 5 SCC 294 (supra) the Act of 1951 was amended by Representation of the Peopel (Third Amendment)Act, 2002 w.e.f. 24.8.2002 and section 33A pertaining to Right to Information was inserted. As per amended law, respondent No.1 is not required to disclose details of criminal case in which he has been acquitted. It was pointed out that Constitutional validity of the Representation of the People (Third Amendment) Act, 2002 was challenged and the Supreme Court by Order dated 13.3.2004, not only upheld the validity of section 33A, but further held that a candidate is not required to disclose the criminal cases in which he is acquitted or discharged. Said decision is reported in [(2003) 4 SCC 399]. In the light of said decision of the Supreme Court, Election Commission of India has issued fresh directives on 27.3.2003 requiring a candidate to disclose relevant details but it is no longer necessary to disclose cases leading to
