Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6377
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, J
YOGENDER CHANDOLIA – Appellant
Versus
VISHESH RAVI – Respondent
EL.PET. 10/2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. C. Parkash, Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta, Ms. Anushree Rawat, Mr. Ishan Parashar, Mr. Ankit Verma
For the Respondents:Mr. Anupam Srivastava, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rishikesh Kumar
Election declarations must reflect truthfulness; false information influences electoral fairness and may entail legal consequences under electoral law.
Headnote:(A) Representation of People Act, 1951 - Sections 80, 100(1)(b), 100(1)(d), 123(4), and 125A - Petition to declare election null and void for false declaration of educational qualifications - Court discusses the scope of corrupt practices under Section 123(4) and the implications of filing false affidavits. (Paras 1-12)
(B) Legal Principles - False declarations can amount to corrupt practices depending on context; judicial interpretation can stretch the ambit of provisions based on legislative intent. (Paras 8-10)
(C) Findings concluded that the matter requires discerning whether allegations of false information in affidavits constitute corrupt practices under electoral laws, reflecting on multiple precedents and judicial perspectives. (Paras 6-9)
Facts of the case:
The case involves a petitioner challenging the election of the respondent due to alleged false educational qualifications.
Findings of Court:
The determination rests primarily on interpreting statutory provisions regarding election integrity and the nature of the purported false information.
Issues: The Court focused on whether the allegations of falsehood in the candidate's declarations amount to corrupt practices as defined by various sections of the RP Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court underscored that context and the nature of misinformation dictate the abusive judicial consideration of electoral declarations.
Result: The judgment on the maintainability of the petition has been reserved.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations of false declarations regarding educational qualifications. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. contending that false information constitutes corrupt practices. (Para 3) |
| 3. defining conditions under which false declarations qualify as corrupt practices. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. analyzing precedents to contextualize claims of false information. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 5. assessing the breadth of election law and implications of misrepresentation. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 6. deliberating on outcomes of false affidavit submissions. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 7. awaiting judgment on the maintainability of the petition. (Para 13) |
O R D E R
% 02.09.2025
1. The present petition under Section 80 read with Section 100(1)(b) & (d) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as “RP Act”) has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayers:
“i. declare the election of returned candidate / respondent no. 1 from the Assembly Constituency - 23 Karoi Bagh, NCT of Delhi held on 08.02.2020 as null and void;
ii. direct the respondent no. 11 to 13 to take steps for prosecution of respondent no. 1 for the acts of false declaration / affidavit / form no. 26 under section 125A of Representation of People Act, 1951 and other provisions of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 1 of 7 iii. Consequent whereupon to direct the respondent no. 11 & 12 to declare the respondent no. 1 as disqualified for the next 6 years, as enumerated in section 8A of Representation of People Act, 1951 .
iv. any other order(s) / direction(s), which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper; in the interest of justice.”
2. It is the case of the Petitioner that Respondent No.1 has deliberately furnished false averments regarding his educational qualifications while contesting the election from the Assembly Constituency - 23 Karol Bagh, NCT of Delhi which was held on 08.02.2020. The averments made in the petition are that Respondent No.1 in his affidavit filed along with the nomination papers for earlier elections held in the year 2013 for the same constituency i.e., AC-23 Karol Bagh, had mentioned his highest qualification as B.Com which he had obtained in the year 2008 from Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Uttar Pradesh. For the General Election for the same constituency held in the year 2015, the Respondent No.1 had mentioned that he was pursuing B.A. Programme from IGNOU, Delhi. Whereas, for the ensuing election for the same constituency, the Respondent No.1 had mentioned that his highest qualification is 10th Standard which he obtained from National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS) in the year of 2003.
3. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that furnishing false information in the affidavit filed along with nomination papers amounts to corrupt practices.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 raises a EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 2 of 7 preliminary objection by stating that the aforesaid allegation does not amount to corrupt practices. He draws attention of this Court to Section
123(4) of the RP Act which reads as under:
“123(4) The publication by a candidate or his agent or by any other person [with the consent of a candidate or his election agent], of any statement of fact which is false, and which he either believes to be false or does not believe to be true, in relation to the personal character or conduct of any candidate or in relation to the candidature, or withdrawal, of any candidate, being a statement reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of that candidate‟s election.”
5. Learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No.1 contends that for attracting provisions of Section 123(4) of the RP Act, there has to be publication by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent regarding the statement of fact which is false, and which he or his agent either believes to be false or does not believe to be true, in relation to the personal character or conduct of any candidate or in rel
