Candidates must fully disclose assets and liabilities in their election affidavits; failure amounts to corrupt practice, rendering elections void.

Headnote:(A) Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 - Sections 80, 80A, 81, 100, and 101 - Election contested as void due to procedural non-compliance - Petitioner contended that request for VVPAT scrutiny ignored, and inaccuracies in vote count identified - Violation of election affidavit provisions noted - Court holds election void due to suppression of material facts in affidavit, declaring petitioner duly elected - Fine imposed for false affidavit. (Paras 1, 35, 69, 74)

(B) Electoral Process - Right to fair and transparent elections - Mandatory for candidates to disclose all assets and liabilities - Non-disclosure constitutes corrupt practice under Sec. 123(2) of the Act, thereby necessitating void election declaration. (Paras 66, 69)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the election of the respondent as void due to denied requests for VVPAT scrutiny and discrepancies in vote counting. It was argued that the respondent failed to disclose several bank accounts and assets in his election affidavit.

Findings of Court:
The actions of the returning officer were found to violate election laws, and the non-disclosure substantially impacted the election integrity, leading to the voiding of the respondent's election.

Issues: Key issues included the returning officer's refusal to consider VVPAT scrutiny requests, discrepancies in vote totals, and the effect of non-disclosure of assets and liabilities in election affidavits.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of full disclosure in election affidavits to uphold electoral integrity and ruled that filing false affidavits constitutes a corrupt practice, rendering an election void if significant non-disclosure occurs.

Result: Election of the respondent declared void; petitioner declared duly elected.

Table of Content
1. election petition filing and procedural background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. issues regarding opening of evms and vvpat scrutiny. (Para 4 , 5)
3. claims of discrepancies in vote counts. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
4. reliefs sought by the petitioner. (Para 9 , 10)
5. service of notice and legal requirements. (Para 15 , 16)
6. court's observations on election procedures and rights. (Para 35 , 42)
7. impact of false affidavit on election validity. (Para 62 , 69)

JUDGMENT

1. This Election Petition is filed under Sec. 80, 80A, 81, 100 R/w. 101 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1951) challenging the election of the Respondent No. 1 herein as Member of 79 - Gadwal Assembly Constituency, Telangana Legislative Assembly as void.

2. The Notification for elections to the Telangana Legislative Assembly was issued by the Election Commission of India on 12/11/2018. The last date for filing nominations was 19/11/2018, and the last date for withdrawal of candidature was 22/11/2018. Thereafter the date of poll was fixed as 7/12/2018. Pleadings in the Election Petition:

3. The petitioner herein submits that she filed her nomination on 19/11/2018 as a candidate of the Indian National Congress to 079 - Gadwal Assembly Constituency. Similarly, the Respondent No.1 herein also filed his nomination as a candidate of Telangana Rashtra Samithi.

4. The petitioner herein contends that on 11/12/2018 i.e., the date of counting, initially the EVM 's of 10 polling stations could not be opened. The details of the polling stations are as under:

5. It is contended that the 'Electronic Voting Machines ' (hereinafter referred to as EVM) in the said polling stations were thereafter opened by taking assistance of technical experts. However, it is contended that the petitioner 's election agent was not permitted to be present during the said period, and as such the petitioner herein submitted an application requesting scrutiny of paper trail pertaining to the 'Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail ' (hereinafter referred to as 'VVPAT ') with respect to EVM 's of the above 10 polling stations. The petitioner herein submits that her application was neither allowed nor rejected. Thus, the petitioner herein contends that the non-consideration of her request amounts to non-compliance of Rule 56-D of the CONDUCT OF ELECTION RULES , 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules ') R/w. Sec. 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act, 1951.

6. The petitioner further contends that on 11/12/2018 she submitted a specific request to count VVPAT 's of all the 253 polling stations, to the returning officer. It is contended that the returning officer failed to take action on her written request, resulting in violation of Sec. 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act, 1951. The petitioner also contended that after the counting of the votes, the total number of votes shown in the report of the Returning Officer was 1,89,013 whereas the total number of votes counted from the ballot units came to 1,89,281. The following are the details of the polling stations where a difference in votes cast and counted was noticed:

7. Therefore, on the basis of the above the petitioner herein contends that the excess difference of 268 votes leads to an unimpeachable conclusion that the 8 polling stations where there was a difference in the votes cast and counted, were compromised.

8. The petitioner further contends that the respondent No.1 herein did not disclose the following details in the affidavit filed with his nomination:

i. Dues to Government: The respondent No.1 is a registered owner of the vehicle bearing No. AP-11-AP-5577, against which E-Challans of Rs.235.00 are pending. Whereas, the respondent no.1 's wife is the registered owner of vehicle bearing No. AP-09-BY-8979, on which E-Challans of Rs.975.00 are pending.

ii. Bank Accounts: The respondent No.1 suppressed the existence of the following bank accounts: a. Bank Account bearing No.30156945667, with the State Bank of India, Gadwal A