Non-disclosure of material facts in election affidavits constitutes corrupt practice, affecting election results and undermining electoral integrity.

CAV ORDER

Petitioner, who had unsuccessfully contested the election to the 16^th Karnataka Legislative Assembly Elections held on 10.05.2023 from 140-Bagepalli Assembly Constituency as a candidate from Bharatiya Janata Party has filed the present petition challenging the election of Respondent No.1, who was declared elected in the said election as a candidate from Indian National Congress and is seeking following reliefs:

(i) To set-aside the election of the Respondent No.1 to the 16^th Karnataka Legislative Assembly from 140-Bagepalli Assembly Constituency;

(ii) Declare the petitioner as duly elected to fill the seat of Karnataka Legislative Assembly from 140-Bagepalli Assembly Constituency;

(iii) Pass such other Order/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of this case.

2. Brief facts of the case of the petitioner is as under:

2.1 That the Respondent No.1 in his Form 26 Affidavit filed along with his nomination papers on 20.04.2023 has not disclosed up-to-date details of all his assets and liabilities including that of his wife and dependant daughter. That he has suppressed material information regarding various business entities registered in his name and in the name of his wife. That he has not disclosed details of all the properties owned by him and his wife and dependant daughter. That he has claimed to be the owner of the property which does not belong to him. That he has not disclosed the true value of the properties. That he has defaulted on several dues payable to the Statutory Authorities.

2.2 That non-disclosure of the assets and liabilities of the Respondent No1, his wife and the dependant daughter has resulted in interference with the free exercise of electoral right and thereby Respondent No.1 has committed corrupt practice as contemplated under Section 123 (2) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as `R.P. Act', 1951 for brevity).

2.3 That in view of non-disclosure and false information in Form 26 Affidavit at Serial Nos. 4, 7 and 8, the Returning Officer ought not to have accepted the nomination filed by the Respondent No.1.

2.4 That in view of suppression of the facts, election of Respondent No.1 has materially affected the petitioner, as such he is entitled to be declared as the returned candidate under Section 101 of the R.P. Act, 1951.

2.5 At paragraph 16 of the petition, petitioner has enumerated the details of non-disclosure of assets and liabilities and the details of false information by Respondent No.1 in Form 26 Affidavit which are as under:

I. Non-disclosure of up-to- date account balance in respect of savings accounts of himself, his wife and daughter;

II. Non-disclosure of businesses and corresponding current account balance relating to Respondent No.1;

III. Non-disclosure of businesses and corresponding current account balance relating to Respondent No.1's Wife;

IV. Non-Disclosure of Loans advanced by the Respondent No.1;

V. False information in relation to agriculture properties at Sl. No. 7(B) (i) of Form 26 Affidavit with respect to lands owned by the Respondent No.1 and his daughter;

VI. Non-Disclosure in relation to agriculture properties at Sl. No. 7(B) (i) of Form 26 Affidavit relating to Respondent No.1's Wife:

VII. Non-Disclosure of Non-Agriculture Properties at Sl. No. 7(B) (ii) of Form 26 Affidavit relating to Respondent No.1;

VIII. False Information in relation to valuation of Properties at Sl. No.7 of Form 26 Affidavit;

IX. Non-Disclosure of GST dues at Sl. No.8 of Form 26 Affidavit;

X. Non-Disclosure in relation to late fee due and payable by the Respondent No.1 under Section 47 of CGST A