IMPORTANT POINT
The contesting candidate must disclose not only those cases in which charges have been framed but also those in which cognizance have been taken.

JUDGMENT :

RANJAN GOGOI, CJI.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant– Satish Ukey is a practicing Advocate of the Bombay High Court. The first respondent is an elected member of the Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly and is presently holding the post of Chief Minister of the State of Maharashtra.

3. The appellant had filed a criminal complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur for registration of a case against the first respondent under Section 125-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1951 Act”). The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur by order dated 7th September, 2015 dismissed the complaint. In Revision, the learned Sessions Judge, Nagpur remanded the matter to the learned trial Court for a de novo consideration. Aggrieved, the first respondent moved the High Court and the High Court having set aside the order of the learned Sessions Judge by its judgment and order dated 3rd May, 2018, the present appeals have been filed.

4. The complaint filed by the appellant contains an allegation that in the affidavit in Form-26, prescribed by the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1961 Rules”), which had accompanied the nomination papers of the first respondent details of two cases in which cognizance was taken i.e. (i) Summary Case No.231 of 1996 (under Section 500 of IPC) before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur; and (ii) Regular Criminal Case No.343 of 2003 (Old No.125 of 1998) (under Sections 468, 471, 218, 467, 420 and 34 of IPC) before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur have not been mentioned by the first respondent despite knowledge of the same. Consequently, according to the appellant – complainant, an infraction of the provisions of Section 125-A has been committed for which the first respondent is liable to be prosecuted in a court of competent jurisdiction.

On the very same allegations the appellant had challenged the election of the first respondent before the High Court by instituting Election Petition No.1 of 2014 which has been dismissed by the High Court by its order dated 19th August, 2015.

5. To determine the correctness of the stand taken by the appellant - complainant and the legality of the impugned order of the High Court holding that the complaint is liable to be dismissed, the Court would be required to consider the provisions of Sections 33-A and 125-A of the 1951 Act, Rule 4A of the 1961 Rules read with Form-26 prescribed under the said Rules. Several letters of the Election Commission of India to the Chief Electoral Officers of all the States and the Union Territories issued in this regard would also require a close look.

6. Before setting out the relevant provisions of the law enumerated above, a brief prologue on the judicial precedents that had led to the insertion of Sections 33-A and 125-A in the 1951 Act and the provisions of Rule 4-A of the 1961 Rules read with Form-26 is considered necessary.

7. In Union of India (UOI) and Ors. v. Association for Democratic Reforms and Ors., (2002) 5 SCC 294 this Court while examining the issue of the Voters right to know relevant particulars of the contesting candidates before they are called upon to cast their votes had made the following observations :

“22. For health of democracy and fair election, whether the disclosure of assets by a candidate, his/her qualification and particulars regarding involvement in criminal cases are necessary for informing voters, may be illiterate, so that they can decide intelligently, whom to vote? In our opinion, the decision of even illiterate voter, if properly educated and informed about the contesting candidate, would be based on his own relevant criteria of selecting a cand