Non-disclosure of income tax returns in nomination forms, without evidence of affecting the election outcome, does not constitute a ground for declaring an election void under the Representation of the People Act.

Headnote:(A) Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Sections 11(a), 33, 33A, 34, 80, 80A, 81, 83, 84, 100(1)(a)(b)(d), 101, 123 and 125(a) - Election petition challenging election of respondent on grounds of improper nomination and suppression of income tax returns - Respondent was accused of failing to disclose four years of income tax returns in Form 26, which was claimed to amount to suppression and a corrupt practice under Section 123(2) - Court noted that non-disclosure does not amount to substantial defect affecting election outcome. (Paras 3, 7, 10, 9).

(B) Corrupt Practices - Definition and implications - Court clarified the distinction between substantial non-compliance and procedural irregularities, emphasizing the requirement of proving that the election result was materially affected to declare it void under Section 100. (Paras 9.6, 10.vii).

(C) Election Integrity - The Court reiterated that the purity of elections is paramount and that challenges to election outcomes should meet stringent legal standards, subsequently dismissing the election petition due to lack of merits. (Paras 9.6, 10.i). Findings: Non-mention of previous income tax returns was procedural and not substantial enough to void the election; the election was upheld.

Issues: Whether respondent's election should be declared void due to alleged non-disclosure of income tax returns.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that mere non-disclosure of income tax returns did not substantively affect the election outcome per legal precedents.

Result: Election petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. election petition filed under the representation of the people act. (Para 2)
2. petitioner's contention on nomination submission non-compliance. (Para 3)
3. respondent's counterarguments against petitioner's claims. (Para 4)
4. court's framing of issues based on contentions. (Para 5 , 6)
5. interconnected issues need to be discussed together. (Para 7)
6. understanding requirements under sec 100 of the act. (Para 8)
7. right to know impacts election integrity. (Para 9)
8. final conclusion on dismissal of election petition. (Para 10)

ORDER

Heard Mr. C. Raghu, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. R. Giri Kumar, learned counsel for Election Petitioner and Mr. J. Ramachandra Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. S. Santosh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 - Returned Candidate.

2. This Election Petition is filed by the Election Petitioner under Sections - 11 (a), 33, 33(A), 34, 80, 80A, 81, 83, 84, 100 (1) (a) (b) (d), 101, 123 and 125 (a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 1951’), to set aside the election of respondent No.1 as the Member of Telangana Legislative Assembly from 005-Asifabad Assembly Constituency (ST), Kumurambheem - Asifabad District (which is hereinafter referred to as ‘subject constituency’) and to declare the election petitioner as duly elected candidate to the subject Constituency.

3. CONTENTIONS OF THE ELECTION PETITIONER

i. Respondent No.1 failed to comply with the provisions with regard to submission of nomination as prescribed under the Act, 1951, Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules, 1961’) and the Orders made thereunder by the Election Commission.

ii. Submission of nomination by respondent No.1 along with Form - 26 was incomplete as she has not submitted five (05) years Income Tax Returns i.e., 2022-23, 2021-22, 2020-21, 2019-20 and 2018-19 and she has submitted only one year Income Tax Returns i.e., 2022-23, and it amounts to suppression of information to the voters of the subject constituency.

iii. Respondent No.1 also contested the General Election, 2018 to the subject constituency wherein she has filed Form - 26 showing her income for the year 2017-18 as Rs.5,40,000/- only. Having shown that much income for the year 2017-18, she deliberately suppressed her income for the years 2022-21, 2021-20, 2020-19 and 2019-18.

iv. Respondent No.1 also contested to the Zilla Parishad Territorial Constituency (ZPTC), Jainoor, Kumurambheem - Asifabad District in the year 2019 by showing her income as Rs.5,40,000/- for the year 2017-18, and she was elected as ZPTC Member, Jainoor and thereafter as Zilla Parishad Chairman of Kumurambheem - Asifabad District. Vide G.O.Ms.No.53, dated 24.06.2015, honorarium of Chairperson of Zilla Parishad, ZPTC, MPTC and Sarpanches were enhanced. As per the said G.O., respondent No.1 was drawing Rs.1,00,000/- per month which comes to Rs.12,00,000/- per annum. The income as Chairman and pension itself amounts to Rs.15,60,000/-. Despite the same, respondent No.1 showing her income as NIL for the years 2021- 22, 2020-21, 2019-20, 2018-19 and 2017-18 and this amounts to suppressing of information, and thereby she committed a corrupt practice under Section - 123 (2) of the Act, 1951. v. Without considering the said aspects, the Returning Officer accepted the nomination of respondent No.1 improperly.

vi. Thus, the result of the election of returned candidate has been materially affected.

4. CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT No.1 i. Election Petition is silent as to how the result was materially affected.

ii. The election petition is not maintainable as per Section - 100 of the Act, 1951.

iii. The election petition was filed without compliance with the requirement in Form 25 as the same shall be accompanied with an affidavit in the prescribed form in support of allegation of corrupt practice.

iv. The election petition has to be dismissed on the grounds of false and frivolous allegations made therei

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 38826

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABADK. LAKSHMAN, JAjmera Shyam – AppellantVersusSmt.Kova Laxmi – RespondentEP/10/2024

Non-disclosure of income tax returns in nomination forms, without evidence of affecting the election outcome, does not constitute a ground for declaring an election void under the Representation of the People Act.

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. LAKSHMAN, J
Ajmera Shyam – Appellant
Versus
Smt.Kova Laxmi – Respondent
EP/10/2024