LI Network
Published on: January 16, 2024 at 18:32 IST
In a recent pronouncement, the Karnataka High Court has ruled that candidates filing election nomination forms must reveal all details of criminal proceedings against them, regardless of whether they have been acquitted or not, and irrespective of whether the proceedings have been quashed.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj, presiding over a single-judge bench, dismissed a petition filed by Mudiyappa, who contested the trial court’s decision to set aside his election to the Bevoor Gram Panchayath due to non-disclosure of an acquittal.
The petitioner argued that disclosure is only mandatory in case of convictions or pending criminal proceedings, contending that the omission of an acquittal would not materially impact the election results.
The bench, however, referred to the Supreme Court’s directive in Democratic Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms, emphasizing that all details, including those related to criminal proceedings, must be disclosed in nomination papers.
The Court clarified that the aspect of conviction or sentence becomes relevant for candidate disqualification.
In the context of filing nomination forms, the primary requirement is full disclosure of all aspects related to the candidate. The Court rejected the distinction between conviction/acquittal or pending/acquittal, asserting that such a distinction has no bearing on the disclosure requirement.
The Court stressed that the mere filing of a complaint and the initiation of criminal proceedings suffice for candidates to disclose in their nomination forms. It suggested that candidates could utilize additional sheets if necessary to provide particulars such as crime number, allegations’ provisions, co-accused, de-facto complainant, case stage, nature and date of disposal, appeal details, and whether proceedings have been quashed or set aside.
Rejecting the petitioner’s argument that non-disclosure of acquittal would not impact the election, the court asserted that the concept of material impact should be interpreted broadly. It highlighted that non-disclosure could be deemed as suppression, and the electorate should have access to all details to make informed decisions.
In conclusion, the Court dismissed the petition filed by Mudiyappa.
Case Title: Mudiyappa AND Basavaraj @ Basappa & Others
