The court upheld the returning officer's acceptance of a nomination despite omissions in the affidavit, determining these defects were not substantial and did not materially affect the election result.

JUDGMENT

This is a petition filed under Sections 80 , 80A and 81, 82, 83, 84 read with Sections 100 (1)(a), (d) and 101 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short, ‘the R.P Act’).

2. Petitioner contested the general election to the Kerala Legislative Assembly held on 06.04.2021 as a candidate of Indian National Congress(I) with ‘hand’ as symbol from 092 Peermade Assembly Constituency. The first respondent contested the election from 092 Peermade Assembly Constituency as a candidate of Communist Party of India with ‘Ears of Corn and Sickle” as symbol. Second Respondent contested the election as a candidate of Bharatiya Janatha Party with “Lotus” as symbol. Third respondent contested the election as a candidate of Bahujan Samajwadi Party with “Elephant” as symbol. Respondents 4 and 5 were independent candidates who contested the election with symbol respectively as “Battery Torch” and “Candles”.

3. Respondent No.1 got 1835 votes over and above the Election Petitioner and therefore on 02.05.2021, the returning officer declared respondent No.1 as won the election. Respondents 2 to 5 were the other candidates contested the election from 092 Peermade Assembly Constituency with symbol “Battery Torch” and “Candles” respectively.

4. Votes were counted on 02.05.2021 and respondent No.1 secured 60141 votes, petitioner, 58306 votes, the 2^nd respondent, 7126 votes, the 3^rd respondent, 818 votes, the 4^th respondent, 251 votes and the 5^th respondent, 248 votes. Thus the returning officer declared respondent No.1 as elected by 1835 votes.

5. It was contended that the 1^st respondent was holding an office of profit under the State Government as Chairman of Kerala State Warehousing Corporation (for short ‘ Corporation’) at the time of his nomination and he was using a vehicle as well as accommodation provided by the Government, but those factums were suppressed by him in the nomination. He failed to produce the no dues certificate alongwith the nomination. According to him, every person contesting an election as a candidate shall furnish full and complete information in an affidavit sworn to before a Magistrate of First Class or a Notary Public or a Commissioner of Oaths appointed by the High Court of State Concerned and non-furnishing of one such shall be considered as violation of the direction issued in that regard and the nomination filed shall be rejected by the returning officer at the time of its scrutiny itself. Penal consequences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 would follow, for furnishing wrong information to a public servant or suppression of material facts from him.

6. Therefore, it was the duty of the returning officer to check whether all information required is fully furnished in the affidavit filed alongwith the nomination. According to him, the information called for is very vital as the people voting are entitled to be informed of those particulars while exercising their right to vote. The returning officer shall also remind the candidate to fill, spaces which are kept blank in the affidavit and if the candidate failed to do so, it is open to the returning officer to reject the nomination. According to him, there is a specific direction in the affidavit itself that no column shall be kept vacant.

7. According to him, the affidavits submitted by respondent Nos.1 and 3 to 5 alongwith the nomination as envisag