Supreme Court: While considering this matter wherein the petition challenged her removal from the post of Councillor at Nagar Parishad, Bhikangaon as she had failed to disclose a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) while filing her nomination papers, the Division Bench of P.S. Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar*, JJ., explained that once it is found that there has been non-disclosure of a previous conviction by a candidate, it creates an impediment in the free exercise of electoral right by a voter. A voter is thus deprived of making an informed and advised choice. It would be a case of suppression/non-disclosure by such candidate, which renders the election void.
Background and Legal Trajectory:
The petitioner was elected in the elections held for the post of Councillor at Nagar Parishad, Bhikangaon and a Notification to that effect dated 04-10-2022, came to be issued. The 1st respondent filed an election petition under Section 20 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (1961 Act) read with the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Palika Nirvachan Niyam, 1994 (1994 Rules) and sought a declaration that the petitioner be disqualified for holding the post of Councillor and that her seat be declared as vacant. In the election petition, it was pleaded by the 1st respondent that on 07-08-2018, the petitioner had been convicted in proceedings filed under Section 138 of the NI Act. She had been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and was ordered to pay compensation. The fact of her conviction, however, had not been disclosed by the petitioner in the affidavit filed along with the nomination form as required by Rule 24-A of the 1994 Rules.
Perusing the election petition, the Trial Court found that the petitioner’s conviction was not disclosed in the affidavit filed along with the nomination form. It was held that it was mandatory on the part of a candidate to disclose if they had suffered any conviction, the voters had a right to obtain correct information. The petitioner’s non-disclosure had affected the voters from Ward thereby materially affecting the election. Hence the Trial Court disqualified the petitioner from continuing as a Councillor and her election was declared as null and void.
Aggrieved with the Trial Court’s verdict, the petitioner challenged the same before Madhya Pradesh High Court contending that the order of her conviction had been set aside in December 2022, thus, the same could not be the basis for unseating her. It was also urged that the 1st respondent had failed to prove that the petitioner’s election had been materially affected on account of non-compliance of the provisions of Rule 24-A of the 1994 Rules. The High Court however upheld the Trial Court’s decision holding that her non-disclosure resulted in the breach of Rule 24-A of the 1994 Rules and observed that that the petitioner did not enter into the witness box to establish that by failing to disclose her conviction, her election was not materially affected nor did it influence the election.
Thus, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court.
Court’s Assessment:
Perusing the facts and legal trajectory of the case, the Court noted that petitioner had failed to disclose the fact that she had been convicted under Section 138 of the NI Act, which was required of the petitioner to be disclosed as a material fact in the affidavit as per Rule 24-A of the 1994 Rules.
The Court further pointed out that Section 22 (1) (d) of the 1961 Act indicates that the election of returned candidate can be declared to be void on account of improper acceptance of his/her nomination form or on account of non-compliance with the provisions of the Act of 1961 or the Rules of 1994 or orders made thereunder.
The Court further pointed out that the petitioner’s conviction on 07-08-2018, was in force when she submitted her nomination form on 09-09-2022. Therefore, the finding by the Court below vis-a-vis petitioner’s failure to disclose her conviction, was accepted by the Supreme Court. The Court stated that under Rule 24-A (1), every candidate contesting elections is required to furnish information which includes declaration of criminal antecedents, etc. The information required to be furnished is with regard to any pending criminal case in which the candidate is charged or any criminal case that has been disposed of and has resulted in his conviction. Failure to furnish such affidavit can result in rejection of the nomination paper. The Returning Officer is required to display the nomination furnished by each candidate by affixing a copy of the affidavit at a conspicuous place at his office so as to provide information to the electors from the concerned ward. He is also required to publicise the information received through the media. Similarly, contents of the affidavit required to be filed under Rule 24-A (1) are also required to be displayed in the aforesaid manner.
The object behind disclosing such information is to enable the voters to get knowledge about the criminal antecedents, assets, liabilities and educational qualifications of the candidates contesting the elections. Such information is required to be furnished in furtherance of the right to information available to the electorate under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution.
The petitioner was therefore obligated to furnish information about her conviction and consequently being sentenced to imprisonment. She however failed to do so. Pertinently, Rule 24-A (1) requires a declaration to be made of an order or conviction, irrespective of the quantum of sentence imposed. Therefore, by failing to disclose her previous conviction, the petitioner furnished false and incorrect information as regards her criminal antecedents. As a result, the verification of her affidavit was false and incorrect despite the fact that the petitioner had full knowledge of her conviction which she had subjected to further challenge. As a result of such false information being furnished by the petitioner in her affidavit filed under Rule 24-A (1) of the Rules of 1994, her nomination paper was improperly accepted. Consequently, the ground under Section 22 (1) (d) (iii) of the Act of 1961 became available for declaring her election to be void.
The Court declined to accept the petitioner’s contention that her conviction was not in relation to any serious offence or one touching upon moral turpitude. The Court opined that this contention seeks to dilute the fact of non-disclosure of the petitioner’s conviction in the nomination form.
It was explained that non-furnishing information pertaining to criminal antecedents has the effect of causing undue influence which creates an impediment in the free exercise of electoral right by a voter.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the Court stated that by failing to disclose her conviction under Section 138 of the Act of 1881, the petitioner suppressed material information and thus failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Rule 24-A(1) of the Rules of 1994. The acceptance of her nomination form was therefore rightly held to be improper. She being the returned candidate, her election was rendered void. Thus, on account of such wrongful acceptance of her nomination form, the election was materially affected.
[Poonam v. Dule Singh, SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 12000 OF 2025, decided on 6-11-2025]
*Judgment by Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Vivek Tankha, Sr. Adv. (arguing counsel) Mr. Inder Dev Singh, Adv. Ms. Niti Richhariya, AOR Mr. Ashish S Sharma, Adv. Mr. Lucky Jain, Adv.
For Respondent(s): Mr. Sarvam Ritam Khare, AOR (arguing counsel) Mr. Kushagra Sharma, Adv. Mr. Akarsh Khare, Adv. Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR Mr. Abhinav Srivastav, Adv. Ms. Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Adv. Mr. Astik Gupta, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Tomar, Adv. Ms. Jayasree Narasimhan, Adv. Ms. Shweta Chaurasia, Adv.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
