Voter's Right to Know Trumps Candidate's Silence: MP HC Boots Congress MLA for Hiding Criminal Shadows

In a landmark ruling that underscores the sanctity of voter information, the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior has annulled the Vijaypur Assembly by-election victory of Congress MLA Mukesh Malhotra. Justice G.S. Ahluwalia declared the election void, citing deliberate suppression of critical criminal details in Malhotra's Form 26 affidavit. BJP's Ramniwas Rawat, who polled a close second with 46.95% votes against Malhotra's 50.66%, stands declared the duly elected MLA.

From Congress Switch to Poll Battle: The Vijaypur By-Election Saga

The controversy traces back to November 2023, when Rawat—then a Congress MLA from Vijaypur (Constituency No. 2, Sheopur district)—resigned after switching to BJP. This triggered a by-election announced on October 15, 2024, with polling on November 13 and results on November 23. Malhotra emerged victorious, but Rawat's petition under Sections 80/81 of the Representation of the People (RP) Act, 1951, alleged foul play in the affidavit.

Rawat, a five-time former MLA from the seat (1990-2018), claimed Malhotra hid six criminal cases: incomplete details in two pending ones (Crimes 2/2022 and 93/2023 at Karahal PS) where charges were framed, and total omission of four others (Forest Crime 32773/2014, Crime 32/2011, Crime 2/2013, Crime 2/2020).

Petitioner's Firepower: "Suppression is Corrupt Practice"

Rawat's counsel hammered on Form 26's mandate under Section 33A RP Act, arguing voters' fundamental right to know candidates' criminal past (citing Association for Democratic Reforms (2002) 5 SCC 294 and PUCL v. UOI (2003) 4 SCC 399). Key lapses:

- Falsely marked "no charges framed" in two cases (charges framed December 14, 2022, and October 17, 2023).

- Downgraded assaults/abuse (IPC 323, 294, 506) to mere "verbal altercation."

- Omitted convictions (forest offence: 210 trees felled; another: 6 months RI + fine, later overturned).

Non-disclosure, they urged, is "undue influence" per Section 123(2) RP Act ( Krishnamoorthy v. Sivakumar (2015) 3 SCC 467), voiding the poll without proving material effect ( Poonam v. Dule Singh 2025 INSC 1284).

Newspapers with poor local circulation were cited as proof of evading scrutiny.

Malhotra's Defense: "Trivial Lapses, No Monumental Fraud"

Malhotra admitted all cases but countered: - Section 33A mandates disclosure only for >1-year sentences or framed charges in serious cases; his were minor.

- "Ykxw ugha" (not applicable) was inadvertent; helper J.P. Dhanopia erred (unpleaded, unproven).

- Acquittals/appeals absolved him; illiteracy/tribal background excused gaps ( C.P. John v. Babu M. Palissery AIR 2015 SC 16).

He invoked Ajmera Shyam v. Kova Laxmi 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1723: minor omissions (e.g., income) don't void elections.

Framing Charges: No Mere Formality, Court's Judicial Scalpel

Justice Ahluwalia dissected Form 26's rationale: Framing charges ( Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah v. State of Gujarat (2019) 9 SCC 148) applies judicial mind to probe "grave suspicion," not rote procedure ( Ram Prakash Chadha v. State of UP (2024) 10 SCC 651).

Malhotra's "no charges" lie, false summaries (assaults as "altercations"), and omissions (tree-felling in tree-worshipping Adivasi belt) misled voters. As a law grad (MA Social Science, LLB), "bona fides" rang hollow—no helper examined, no written plea.

Key Observations

"The stage of framing charge is not a mere formality but... judicial mind is applied to find out as to whether the material collected against the accused prima facie raises a grave suspicion that the accused might have committed offence requiring his trial."

"Non-disclosure of complete information regarding the stage of pending cases, by itself, would amount to suppression of a material fact, resulting in corrupt practice."

"Suppression... creates an impediment in the free exercise of electoral rights, and has deprived the voters to make an informed and advised choice."

Media evidence confirmed poor publicity; non-disclosure of <1-year convictions spared (per Section 33A), but pending case lies sealed fate.

People's Mandate Restored: Rawat Takes Vijaypur Seat

No need to prove "material effect"—suppression presumes it ( Krishnamoorthy ). Malhotra's poll is void; Rawat, runner-up, is MLA. EC/RO to formalize.

This echoes Public Interest Foundation v. UOI (2019) 3 SCC 224: Voters' "informed choice" is democracy's bedrock. As news reports note, Malhotra's tribal roots and "procedural lapse" claims crumbled against voters' right to know.

Future candidates: Hide at peril—affidavits aren't checkboxes; they're voter contracts.