SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Telangana) 43

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
P. NAVEEN RAO, J.
Prem Singh Rathore, S/o. Manohar Singh Rathore - Petitioner
Versus
T. Raia Sinoh, S/o. Late T. Naval Singh and others - Respondents
Election Petition No. 15 of 2019
Decided On : 11-03-2022

Headnote:

The Court held that the non-disclosure of criminal cases in the affidavit filed by the elected candidate amounts to corrupt practice and declared his election as void.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the election of the first respondent alleging that he committed several omissions and commission of Model Code of Conduct, violated various provisions of the Act, 1951 and his actions/conduct would amount to indulging in corrupt practices. The first respondent denied the allegations and asserted that he had complied with all the required formalities including filing of affidavit in Form No.26.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the first respondent had not disclosed eight criminal cases pending against him in the affidavit filed in Form No. 26, which amounts to suppression of true information and corrupt practice.

Issues: Whether the first respondent suppressed material information about the pending criminal cases in the affidavit in Form-26 filed along with the nomination to contest election to the State Legislative Assembly from Goshamahal Assembly Constituency Number 65, thereby incurring disqualification and declaration of his selection as void.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the purpose and objective of dissemination of information about background of the candidate more particularly the criminal background of the candidate is necessary for the electorate to make conscious decision/ choice from any one of the contestants, therefore all the information concerning the candidate must be disclosed. Section 33-A vests right in the electorate and non-disclosure of the information offends the right of the electorate, therefore non-dissemination of information by a candidate has to be viewed as amounting to deliberate and willful suppression and misleading the electorate from taking an informed decision. Nondisclosure of relevant information is also a corrupt practice and as per Section 100 (1) (b) the Election Tribunal can declare the election of an elected candidate as void, if the corrupt practice is proved.

Final Decision: The Court declared the election of the first respondent as void.

ORDER :

Heard Sri V. Ravinder Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri V. Hari Haran, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent no.1.

2. On 6.10.2018 schedule for conducting elections for the States of Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Mizoram and Telangana were announced by the Election Commission of India. The election schedule is as under :

Date of issue of Gazette Notification

12.11.2018 (Monday)

Last date of Nomination

19.11.2018 (Monday)

Date for Scrutiny of Nomination

20.11.2018 (Tuesday)

Date for withdrawal of candidates

22.11.2018 (Thursday)

Date of Polling

07.12.2018 (Friday)

Date of Counting

11.12.2018 (Tuesday)

Date of completion of the election

13.12.2018 (Thursday)

3. Accordingly, Gazettee notification was published on 12.11.2018 calling for elections to the Telangana State Assembly. Petitioner was nominated by the Telangana Rastra Samithi party to contest the election to the Member of Legislative Assembly from Goshamahal Assembly Constituency Number 65. Petitioner submitted his nomination paper No.36/65/2018 on 19.11.2018. He has complied with all the required formalities including filing of affidavit in Form No.26. The first respondent was sitting Member of Legislative Assembly from Goshamahal Constituency representing Bharatiya Janata Party. He was again nominated to contest on behalf of Bharatiya Janata Party from Goshamahal Assembly Constituency. The first respondent filed nomination papers on 12.11.2018 and again on 19.11.2018.

4. Respondents 2 to 24 have also submitted their nomination papers. On scrutiny of nomination papers, the Returning Officer of the Goshamahal Assembly Constituency, declared the petitioner and respondents 1 to 24 as validly nominated to contest the Assembly elections 2018 for Goshamahal Assembly Constituency. Petitioner further submits that on filing of nomination papers, the Returning Officer supplied books which deal with ‘Dos and Don’ts’ ‘Hand Book for Candidates’ ‘Polling Agents Manual’ and other election regulatory books and material to all the nominated candidates.

5. In the elections conducted on 07.12.2018 first respondent secured 61,806 votes, whereas petitioner secured 44,902 votes and as first respondent secured more votes than any other candidate contesting the elections, he was declared as elected on 13.12.2018. After the first respondent, petitioner secured more votes than other candidates who contested in the election.

6. In this Election Petition, petitioner challenges the election of first respondent alleging that he committed several omissions and commission of Model Code of Conduct, violated various provisions of the Act, 1951 and his actions/conduct would amount to indulging in corrupt practices. He prays to declare the election of first respondent as null and void and consequently to declare the petitioner as duly elected to the Legislative Assembly Goshamahal Constituency No.65.

6.1. Petitioner avers that being sitting Member of Legislative Assembly, the first respondent was expected to know all aspects of contesting elections including ‘Model Code of Conduct’ which was in force from 6.10.2018. Petitioner contends that from the date of issuance of press note dated 6.10.2018, first respondent committed innumerable corrupt practices such as calling the voters by way of appeasing the electors/voters on the ground of religion and cow, cow slaughter, provocation and inducement to the electors/voters, appealed to the voters using National flag, photos and idols of religious Gods, promoting the feelings of enmity between the classes of the citizens on the ground of religion and made statements touching the personal character and conduct of the petitioner which prejudicially affected the election of the petitioner and other contestants.

6.2. It is further contended that first respondent incurred expe

                                Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                                1
                                2
                                3
                                4
                                5
                                6
                                7
                                8
                                9
                                10
                                11
                                SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                                supreme today icon
                                logo-black

                                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

                                qr

                                Scan Me!

                                India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                                For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                                whatsapp-icon Back to top