2019 (10) TMI 1603 - SC - Indian Laws

Applicability of provisions of Section 125-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 - alleged failure of the respondent to disclose pending criminal cases in the affidavit filed with nomination papers - information under Section 33-A of the 1951 Act - HELD THAT - A bare perusal of Form-26 makes it abundantly clear that, for offences punishable with imprisonment for two years or more, while entry (5) (i) mandates disclosure of information by the contesting candidate regarding the case(s) that is/are pending against him in which charges have been framed by the Court; entry (5)(ii) mandates disclosure of information by the contesting candidate regarding cases that are pending against him in which cognizance has been taken by the Court. Entry 5(ii) specifically mentions that the candidate is required to provide information of the case(s) pending in which cognizance has been taken. This is in addition to the information he is required to provide against the column in Entry 5(i) as the words 'Other than the cases mentioned in item (i) above' are specifically used in Entry 5 (ii). The position is made further clear by the letters written by the Election Commission of India to the Chief Electoral Officer of all the States and the Union Territories. A reading of the said letters would go to show that a contesting candidate is mandated to furnish information concerning the cases in which a Competent Court has taken cognizance along with the cases in which charges have been framed. The said letters also make it clear that the affidavit mentioned in Section 33-A(2) of the 1951 Act is prescribed in Form-26 and that any false declaration or concealment of information in the said affidavit will attract the provisions of Section 125-A of the 1951 Act. A cumulative reading of Section 33-A of the 1951 Act and Rule 4-A of the 1961 Rules and Form-26 along with the letters dated 24.8.2012, 26.9.2012 and 26.4.2014, make it amply clear that the information to be furnished Under Section 33-A of the 1951 Act includes not only information mentioned in Clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 33-A(1), but also information, that the candidate is required to furnish, under the Act or the Rules made thereunder and such information should be furnished in Form 26, which includes information concerning cases in which a competent Court has taken cognizance (Entry 5(ii) of Form 26). This is apart from and in addition to cases in which charges have been framed for an offence punishable with imprisonment for two years or more or cases in which conviction has been recorded and sentence of imprisonment for a period of one year or more has been imposed (Entries 5(i) and 6 of Form 26 respectively). Conclusion - The information to be furnished under Section 33-A of the 1951 Act includes not only information mentioned in Clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 33-A(1), but also information, that the candidate is required to furnish, under the Act or the Rules made thereunder and such information should be furnished in Form-26. The order of the High Court dated 3rd May, 2018 is set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

The Supreme Court of India rendered a judgment concerning the applicability of Sections 33-A and 125-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, in relation to a complaint filed against a member of the Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly. The core legal questions addressed by the Court were:

1. Issues Presented and Considered

• Whether the provisions of Section 125-A of the 1951 Act apply to the alleged failure of the respondent to disclose pending criminal cases in the affidavit filed with nomination papers.
• What constitutes "information" under Section 33-A of the 1951 Act and whether it includes details of cases where cognizance has been taken by a court.
• Whether the dismissal of the appellant's complaint by the lower courts was legally tenable.

2. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis

Issue 1: Applicability of Section 125-A

• Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 125-A of the 1951 Act penalizes candidates for failing to furnish information, providing false information, or concealing information in their nomination papers or affidavits.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court examined the scope of "information" under Section 33-A and concluded that it includes details of cases where cognizance has been taken, as mandated by Form-26 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The appellant alleged that the respondent failed to disclose two pending criminal cases in his affidavit, which was a violation of the requirements under Form-26.
• Application of Law to Facts: The Court found that the respondent's omission to mention cases where cognizance had been taken constituted a concealment of information as per Section 125-A.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Court considered the respondent's defense that only cases with framed charges needed disclosure, but rejected this argument based on the statutory requirements and precedents.
• Conclusions: The Court held that the failure to disclose cases where cognizance was taken falls within the ambit of Section 125-A, thereby making the respondent liable.

Issue 2: Definition of "Information" under Section 33-A

• Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 33-A mandates candidates to disclose pending criminal cases and convictions in their affidavits. The Court referred to precedents such as People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, which emphasized voters' right to know candidates' antecedents.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court interpreted "information" to include details of cases where cognizance has been taken, aligning with the requirements of Form-26 and the directions of the Election Commission of India.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The Court noted that letters from the Election Commission clarified the need to disclose cases where cognizance had been taken.
• Application of Law to Facts: The respondent's affidavit lacked information about cases where cognizance was taken, which was essential under Form-26.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Court dismissed the argument that the affidavit requirements were limited to cases with framed charges, citing the comprehensive nature of Form-26.
• Conclusions: The Court concluded that the respondent was required to disclose all relevant cases, including those where cognizance was taken, under Section 33-A.

3. Significant Holdings

• Verbatim Quotes: "The information to be furnished under Section 33-A of the 1951 Act includes not only information mentioned in Clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 33-A(1), but also information, that the candidate is required to furnish, under the Act or the Rules made thereunder and such information should be furnished in Form-26."
• Core Principles Established: The judgment reinforced the principle that candidates must disclose all pending cases, including those where cognizance has been taken, to ensure transparency and uphold the voters' right to information.
• Final Determinations: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order dismissing the appellant's complaint and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the trial court, emphasizing adherence to the disclosure requirements under Form-26.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court underscored the importance of comprehensive disclosure by electoral candidates to maintain the integrity of the electoral process, thereby allowing voters to make informed decisions. The judgment mandates strict compliance with the affidavit requirements under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961.