Supreme Court: In an appeal filed by Bharat Rashtra Samithi leader Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao Patil (BB Patil) against the Judgment and order of Telangana High Court, wherein the Court dismissed an application which sought rejection of Congress leader K. Madan Mohan Rao’s election petition, the division bench of S. Ravindra Bhat* and Aravind Kumar, JJ. while dismissing the appeal, said that the alleged non-compliance with statutory and Election Commission mandated regulations, and their legal effect, cannot be examined through a summary proceeding under Order VII Rule 11, CPC, or even under Order XII Rule 6, CPC. Even if the allegations regarding non-disclosure of cases where BB Patil has been arrayed as an accused, are ultimately true, the effect of such allegations has to be considered after a full trial.
In the case at hand, BB Patil was a successful candidate in the election conducted for the Zaheerabad Parliamentary Constituency on 11-04-2019. He was declared elected defeating KMM Rao. Thereafter, KMM Rao preferred an election petition alleging that BB Patil had furnished false information in Form 26 (election affidavit); that the Returning Officer had not followed the Election Commission’s guidelines; further he filed false information in C-4 report furnished to the District Election Officer and that there was no previous publication of papers, regarding pending cases against him and those in which he was convicted. Thereafter, BB Patil applied, under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) for its rejection. BB Patil contended that the election petition did not disclose any cause of action and was barred in law and was liable to be rejected.
The High Court opined that taking in the overall conspectus of the facts available on the record, it did not lead to a compelling reason for rejecting the election petition. Thus, the present appeal has been filed.
Analysis
The Court took note of Section 33-A, which requires disclosure of past criminal antecedents of every candidate, Section 8 that provides for disqualification of elected candidates, upon their conviction of specified offences of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (‘Act’).
The Bench placed reliance on People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 399, wherein Section 33-B providing a blanket ban on dissemination of information other than that spelt out in the enactment irrespective of the need of the hour and the future exigencies was held invalid and unconstitutional. Thus, the Court said that providing information is vital for a vibrant and functioning democracy.
The Court noted that pursuant to the decision and directions of Supreme Court, the Election Commission issued guidelines and framed forms that were part of guidelines requiring declarations inter alia with respect to disclosure of pending criminal cases and those in which candidate(s) had been convicted.
KMM Rao contended that that the disclosure in this case was false because BB Patil was earlier convicted in cases concerning violation of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. Per Contra , BB Patil contended that since the provisions of the Act, in fact, mandate disclosure only in respect of those classes of offences expressly stated, the non-disclosure of information with respect to pending criminal cases, where the accused candidate can face punishment for less than two years or has not been convicted for an offence and sentenced to imprisonment for one year or more, is not required.
The Court noted that the allegations of past convictions are not per se denied by BB Patil, but rather the application for rejection of the petition contended that no disclosure of this kind was needed since they did not answer the description of the class of offences enumerated in Section 33A of the Act.
The Court also said that any material brought on the record by the successful candidate who is a respondent in the election proceedings, ipso facto cannot be considered within the framework of Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the plea altogether. However, there could be circumstances when there is material on the record, the consideration of which may not be considered by Order VII Rule 11 CPC but may fall within the ambit of Order XII Rule 6 CPC. Thus, the matter of record that is not denied and contains facts that can lead the court to draw a decree, is sufficient for the court to do so and, by its judgment, direct decree of the suit wholly or partly
Further, the Court said that a plain look at the election petition reveals that apart from allegations pertaining to non-disclosure of criminal cases pending against BB Patil or cases where he was convicted, other averments and allegations have been made regarding non-compliance with stipulations. The alleged non-compliance with statutory and Election Commission mandated regulations, and their legal effect, cannot be examined through a summary proceeding under Order VII Rule 11, CPC, or even under Order XII Rule 6, CPC. Even if the allegations regarding non-disclosure of cases where BB Patil has been arrayed as an accused, are ultimately true, the effect of such allegations has to be considered after a full trial.
Further, the Bench said that the elector or voter’s right to know about the full background of a candidate is an added dimension to the rich tapestry of our constitutional jurisprudence. Thus, the Court opined that if BB Patil’s contentions were to be accepted, there would be a denial of a full-fledged trial, based on the acknowledgement that material facts were not suppressed. Whether the existence of a criminal case, where a charge has not been framed, in relation to an offence which does not possibly carry a prison sentence, or a sentence for a short spell in prison, and whether conviction in a case, where penalty was imposed, are material facts, are contested. The Court would be pre-judging that issue because if the effect of withholding such information is seen as insignificant, by itself, would not negate the possibility of a conclusion based on the cumulative impact of withholding of facts and non-compliance with statutory stipulations which is to be established in a trial.
Thus, the Court opined that the impugned judgment cannot be faulted.
[Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao Patil v. K. Madan Mohan Rao, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 871, decided on 24-07-2023]
*Judgment Authored by: Justice S. Ravindra Bhat
