Ajmera Shyam v. Smt. Kova Laxmi & Ors.

p. 1839

person. It is not to be considered as a statement of fact of the existence of assets or source of income. As long as the assets, income, and sources of income are otherwise disclosed, and if there is no dispute of the same, non-disclosure of the tax return for certain financial years, although a technical defect under the rules, in our opinion cannot be considered to be a defect of significant importance as it does not in any manner amount to hiding the assets. What has not been disclosed in the form of Income Tax Returns is certain information relating to assets and not “of assets”, as there was full disclosure of her assets and source of income 10.24 It is also not the case that Respondent No.1 did not disclose her Income Tax Returns at all. She did disclose her Income Tax Returns for the Financial Year 2022-2023, which is reflective of her assets and income. Hence, unless it is shown that the assets and income during the other financial years were substantially in variance and these were not disclosed, not much grievance can be made by the election petitioner, for these income tax returns not disclosed would not have been in variance substantially from the Income Tax Return already filed. However, nothing has been shown by the election petitioner about any disproportionately higher income vis-à- vis the sources of income in respect of the period for which the income tax returns had not been filed. 10.25 The matter could have been, however, entirely different had there been an averment made by the election petitioner that the returned candidate deliberately did not disclose the income tax returns to hide her real income and assets during that period, or that the returned candidate had accumulated wealth disproportionate to her income, which could have been detected from the income tax returns that were never filed. In that case, one could say without any hesitation that the information withheld was significant enough to invoke the penal provisions of Section 100(1)(d)(i) for improperly accepting the Respondent No.1’s nomination. Similarly, under such circumstances, the provisions of Section 100(1)(b) or Section 100(1)(d)(iv) could also have been invoked. 10.26 Under the circumstances, since there is no serious dispute about the assets and the source of income of Respondent

p. 1840

No.1 which have been already disclosed, non-disclosure of income tax returns, though a procedural and technical defect, in our opinion, does not amount to misrepresentation or non- disclosure of assets which is of consequence. 10.27 It is also noted that Respondent No.1 had not left the relevant column in the Affidavit blank, which would have made the nomination paper fatally defective and liable to be rejected, as per the judgement in Resurgence India (supra). 10.28 As already discussed above, this Court has held as in the case of Karikho Kri (supra) that what needs to be examined in cases of non-disclosure of information of assets is whether such non-disclosure is of a substantive nature or not. If it is found that the non-disclosure was not of substantial character, the court need not interfere with the election. The court must, therefore, determine whether there was substantial compliance with the legal requirements, or if the deficiency was merely technical or procedural, before the court proceeds to interfere with the election. 10.29 Examined from the above perspective, it is noted that Respondent No.1 did not make a false statement or attempt to mislead the voters by providing erroneous information about the net income or assets as required under Para 4 of the Affidavit. This is not a case of providing false information or engaging in disinformation, but rather a failure to provide certain information concerning the assets which, in our opinion, as mentioned above, does not amount to a defect of substantial character warranting declaration of Respondent No.1’s election as void. The present case does not involve any concealment or misrepresentation of criminal antecedents that would warrant censure under the statutory framework or lead to judicial invalidation of the election. The issue here is of lack of full disclosure of information concerning income tax returns of the returned candidate which is of inconsequential import. 10.30 There is another important aspect noticeable in this case, which is the absence of objection during the scrutiny of the nomination forms by the Returning Officer under Section

p. 1841

36 of the Act. Although this failure to object will not prevent anyone from challenging the validity of the nomination by filing an election petition later, the fact that the Appellant did not raise any objection when certain deficiencies which could be easily ascertained and detected is very significant. We note that the election petition mentions that the petitioner’s agent verbally objected to the nomination paper, but that agent was not examined at the trial. Therefore, this claim cannot be considered to have been proved, and hence, this argument is of no consequence. It can, therefore, be inferred that no objection was raised regarding any such deficiency during scrutiny. If no objections were raised by any of the contesting candidates including the petitioner about certain easily noticeable or discernible deficiencies, it is reasonable to assume that the candidates did not have any serious reservation about the Respondent No.1’s candidacy. Under the circumstances, having participated in the election and competed with other candidates and taken the chance to be elected, the election petitioner’s attempt now to challenge the elected candidate’s victory on a technicality, which we have already discussed, lacks substantial basis, does not inspire confidence of this Court as far as the bona fide of the election petitioner is concerned. The Court’s proceeding should not be reduced to a legal gamble, when electorally defeated. 10.31 We are mindful of the fact that it has also been held by this Court in PUCL (supra), and Kisan Shankar Kathore (supra) that it may not be desirable to reject a nomination at the stage of scrutiny considering the fact that the disputes relating to the correctness or non-disclosure of information may require a full scale enquiry during the election trial and there can be no estoppel because of non-raising of objection during the scrutiny. Yet, failure to raise any objection at the time of scrutiny raises a question mark on the bona fide of the election petitioner, which would prompt the court to minutely examine such a claim by the election petitioner. It may also be noted that in most of the earlier decisions of this Court referred to by the parties, there were serious objections about the non-disclosure of certain information at the stage of scrutiny by the Returning Officer.

p. 1842

10.32 What is also to be noted in the present case is that apart from the fact that there was no objection at the time of scrutiny, during the election trial, no material has been produced by the election petitioner regarding the non-disclosure of any material information by the returned candidate, which would have had a significant impact on the adequacy or inadequacy of the information regarding the disclosed assets and income of the returned candidate. 10.33 Regarding the plea of the election petitioner that Respondent No.1’s election be declared as void due to non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution, the Act, or rules or orders made under the Act, it must be demonstrated that such non-compliance was of a substantial nature, and that it materially affected the result of the election as far as the Respondent No.1 is concerned, which is not the case here. 10.34 We are, thus, of the view that merely because a returned candidate has not disclosed certain information related to the assets, courts should not rush to invalidate the election by adopting a highly pedantic and fastidious approach, unless it is shown that such concealment or non-disclosure was of such magnitude and substantial nature that it could have influenced the election result. In this case, it has not been demonstrated that such concealment or non-disclosure of certain information related to assets was of a substantial nature that could have materially affected the result of the election of the returned candidate. Of course, it was observed by this Court in Lok Prahari (supra), S. Rukmini Madegowda (supra), etc., that if it is found that there has been non-disclosure of assets, it amounts to a corrupt practice. But the non-disclosure of income as per Income Tax Return in the present case, as discussed above, is not of a substantial nature to be considered a corrupt practice. 10.35 The true test, in our opinion, would be whether the non- disclosure of information about assets in any case is of consequential or inconsequential import, finding of which will be the basis for declaring the election valid or void as the case may be.

p. 1843

11. CONCLUSION 11.1 Judicial intervention in election disputes concerning disclosure of information, as discussed above, was prompted by the quest for sanitising the electoral process by eliminating polluting elements by making candidates’ criminal antecedents public. Aiming to prevent criminals from participating in elections to maintain purity of the electoral process — essential for the proper functioning of parliamentary democracy — the court was compelled to exercise its extraordinary power to issue specific directions. Consequently, not only disclosure of criminal antecedents, but also related obligations to disclose assets, liabilities, and educational qualifications of election candidates became mandatory. The knowledge of the criminal antecedents, assets and educational qualifications of the candidates by voters certainly invigorates the electoral process, which is ensured by obligatory disclosure by the candidate. However, the Court has made a subtle distinction between non-disclosure of criminal antecedents and that of assets and educational qualifications. While disclosure of criminal antecedents in the electoral process was the most critical element to maintain the purity of the electoral process which has to be scrupulously adhered to, disclosure of assets and educational qualifications were considered as attending supplementary requirements to strengthen the electoral process, of which there will be certain scope for consideration as to whether it is of substantial or inconsequential nature. In the light of the above, this disclosure requirement as far as assets and educational qualification is concerned, should not be unreasonably stretched to invalidate an otherwise validly declared election over minor technical non-compliances that are not of substantial character, and should not be the basis for nullification of the people’s mandate. 11.2 In the light of the legal position exposited, on examination of the facts in the peculiar background obtaining in the case, we hold that the non-disclosure of income in the income tax return for four financial years by Respondent No.1, is not a defect of substantial character. Therefore, the nomination could not have been rejected under Section 36(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 as contended by the Appellant and hence, no

p. 1844

illegality was committed by the Returning Officer in accepting the nomination of the Respondent No.1. Resultantly, the penal clause cannot be invoked to invalidate Respondent No.1’s election under Section 100(1)(d)(i) of the Act on the ground that the nomination of Respondent No.1 was improperly accepted. 11.3 As we have held that the defect of non-disclosure mentioned is not of a substantial nature, for the same reason the Respondent No.1 cannot be considered to have indulged in a corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123 (2) of the Act, and thus, the election of Respondent No.1 cannot be rendered void under Section 100(1)(b) of the Act. 11.4 Consequently, on the same consideration, it cannot be also said that the Respondent No.1 did not comply with the relevant provisions of the Act or any rule or order made under the Act, to attract the provisions of Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act. 11.5 Furthermore, we also hold that the allegation that the Respondent No.1 did not disclose the income from honorarium she received as the Chairperson of Zilla Parishad, or that she did not disclose receiving ex-MLA pension—cannot be considered to have been proved or established, nor these are of any material consequences.

12. VERDICT: For the reasons stated above, the present appeal, Civil Appeal No.13015 of 2024,# is dismissed as devoid of merit. Parties to bear their own costs. Registry to notify the concerned authorities by taking necessary steps as required under Section 116C(2) of the Representation of the People Act 1951.

Result of the case: Appeal dismissed.

# Ed. Note: “ Civil Appeal No.13015 of 2024” instead of “Civil Appeal No.13015 of 2025” in terms of subsequent corrigendum.