Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 26392
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
KRISHNA S DIXIT, J
DR. RAMESH BABU V M – Appellant
Versus
SMT. ROOPAKALA M – Respondent
ELECTION PETITION NO. 3 OF 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. R SHASHI KUMAR
For the Respondents: SRI. RAGHUPATHY K.
SRI. R HEMANTH RAJ.
SRI. HANAMANTHARAJU K.
Election petitions must include both material facts and particulars, with strict adherence to disclosure of criminal antecedents and election expenditure, failure of which does not invalidate the election unless it materially affects the results.
Headnote:(A) Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Sections 81, 83, 86, and 100 - Challenge to the election of the Returned Candidate on various grounds including improper acceptance of nomination papers, non-disclosure of criminal antecedents and assets, and failure to maintain accounts of election expenditure. (Paras 1-4, 2.1-4.6)
(B) Election petitions must clearly plead material facts and particulars to substantiate the cause of action. The law emphasizes strict adherence to disclosure requirements regarding criminal antecedents and election expenditure. (Paras 4.1-4.8)
Facts of the case:
The election petition contests the election of the Returned Candidate from the Kolar Gold Field constituency, alleging improper acceptance of nominations and failure in disclosures required by law, including falsification of financial details. The election took place on 10.05.2023 and results were announced on 13.05.2023. (Paras 1-3)
Findings of Court:
The petition fails to demonstrate that the alleged faults materially affected the election outcome. The court struck off the challenged allegations and dismissed the petition. (Paras 4.1-4.8)
Issues: The main issues included whether the Returned Candidate’s nomination was improperly accepted, the accuracy of disclosed criminal antecedents, and compliance with financial disclosure requirements. (Paras 4.2-4.5)
Ratio Decidendi: Improper acceptance of nomination papers requires proof that it materially affected election results; non-disclosure of information in affidavits does not render a nomination invalid unless it has demonstrably impacted the electoral outcome. (Paras 4.6-4.8)
Result: Election petition dismissed, costs made easy. (Final paragraph)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of election petition and parties. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. grounds of challenge against election. (Para 4) |
CAV ORDER
This petition lays a challenge to the election of 1st Respondent - Smt.Roopakala M (hereafter called ‘Returned Candidate’) from 146-Kolar Gold Field (SC) Constituency of Karnataka Legislative Asembly-2023. Petitioner has also sought for a declaration to disqualify the Returned Candidate from contesting the elections, on the fault grounds. The petition is structured on the principal grounds, succinctly stated as under:
(a) Improper acceptance of nomination papers of the Returned Candidate by the Returning Officer though her name did not figure in the electoral roll; she had not affixed the nomination paper along with Affidavit in Form 26 in a conspicuous place for the sight of voters, candidates & the public at large.
(b) Returned Candidate gave false & misleading information about her criminal antecedents i.e., her conviction for the offences in Crime No.125/2023; she has also withheld material particulars of the criminal case and the criminal appeal.
(c) Returned Candidate failed to disclose ‘important material details of movable assets’, bank deposits of herself & her spouse, particulars of bank, account number, nature of account & of deposit. These pertain to Rs.50 lakh as Staff Advances (ITC), Rs.55 lakh of market due, Rs.4,12,00,000/- stock-in trade, other current assets and also particulars of jewellery, bullion & such other valuables.
(d) Returned Candidate has failed to furnish correct information pertaining to agricultural & non-agricultural lands and residential buildings owned by herself & by her spouse. She ought to have mentioned full particulars of sale transactions such as mode & cost of acquisition, areal extent of properties, etc.
(e) Returned Candidate has not correctly stated about her educational qualifications & details of dependants, in the Affidavits that accompany her Nomination Papers and the same amounts to suppression of material particulars required of legal disclosure.
(f) Lastly, the Returned Candidate has failed to maintain true, correct & separate account of election expenditure and has not furnished details of separate election account in the Affidavit, as prescribed in the Conduct of Election Rules and extant ECI Notifications.
2. After service of notice, Returned Candidate and others have entered appearance through their counsel. Respondent No.9 has filed his Written Statement on 09.10.2023 supporting the case of Petitioner and seeking invalidation of the election. Returned Candidate has also filed a Written Statement on 16.12.2023, resisting the petition. She has moved the subject two applications viz., the one for striking off the pleadings of petitioner and the other for the rejection of petition for want of cause of action. Petitioner has filed his Objections to these applications. This court vide order dated 2.2.2024 recorded the unanimous submission of all, that the pleadings have been completed and the time for filing pleadings by others has statutorily lapsed. Therefore, matter was posted for the inspection of documents. I am told at the Bar that this inspection has been done.Contesting parties have filed the draft issues.
2.1. Though it is not much pertinent for the adjudication of the subject applications, the order entered on 22.03.2024 is reproduced for keeping the record of the proceedings open.
“ORDER ON I.A.Nos.1 & 2/2024
Application in I.A.No.1/2024 seeking impleadment is only for the limited purpose of seeking a direction for release of the EVMs for the elections that are imminent. All the learned advocates appearing for the parties eo nomine stand tall before the court and say that regardless of maintainability of such applications for impleadment & direction, they have no objection for the release of EVMs. The court also understands the difficulty of conducting elections without adequate number of EVMs and that the retention of EVMs is not required, as
