2015 (2) TMI 1248 - SC - Indian Laws

Election Nullified Due to Undue Influence: Transparency and Informed Voting Rights Upheld

The court found that the non-disclosure of criminal cases by the appellant constituted undue influence and corrupt practice, leading to the nullification ... Null and void election - non-disclosure of full particulars of criminal cases pending against a candidate, at the time of filing of nomination and its eventual impact when the election is challenged before the election tribunal - Constitutional democracy purity of election, probity in governance, sanctity of individual dignity, sacrosanctity of rule of law, certainty and sustenance of independence of judiciary, efficiency and acceptability of bureaucracy, credibility of institutions, integrity and respectability of those who run the institutions and prevalence of mutual deference among all the wings of the State Held that:- The appellant was involved in 8 cases relating to embezzlement. The State Election Commission had issued a notification. The relevant part of the said notification reads as under:- “1. Every candidate at the time of filing his nomination paper for any election or casual election for electing a member or Members or Chairperson or Chairpersons of any Panchayat or Municipality, shall furnish full and complete information in regard to all the five matters referred in paragraph-5 of the preamble, in an Affidavit or Declaration, as the case may be, in the format annexed hereto:- Provided that having regard to the difficulties in swearing an affidavit in a village, a candidate at the election to a Ward Member of Village Panchayat under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 shall, instead of filing an Affidavit, file before the Returning Officer a declaration in the same format annexed to this order: 2. The said affidavit by each candidate shall be duly sworn before a Magistrate of the First Class or a Notary Public or a Commissioner of Oaths appointed by the High Court of the State or before an Officer competent for swearing an affidavit. 3. Non-furnishing of the affidavit or declaration, as the case, may be, by any candidate shall be considered to be violation of this order and the nomination of the candidate concerned shall be liable for rejection by the Returning Officer at the time of scrutiny of nomination for such nonfurnishing of the affidavit/declaration, as the case may be. 4. The information so furnished by each candidate in the aforesaid affidavit or declaration as the case may be, shall be disseminated by the respective Returning Officers by displaying a copy of the affidavit on the notice board of his office and also by making the copies thereof available to all other candidate on demand and to the representatives of the print and electronic media. 5. If any rival candidate furnished information to the contrary, by means of a duly sworn affidavit, then such affidavit of the rival candidate shall also be disseminated along with the affidavit of the candidate concerned in the manner directed above. 6. All the Returning Officers shall ensure that the copies of the affidavit/declaration, prescribed herein by the Tamil Nadu State Election Commission in the Annexure shall be delivered to the candidates along with the forms of nomination papers as part of the nomination papers.” As reproduced the information that is required to be given. Sections 259 and 260 of the 1994 Act makes the provisions contained under Section 123 of the 1951 Act applicable. Submission of Ms. V. Mohana, learned counsel for the appellant is that there was no challenge on the ground of corrupt practice. As we find the election was sought to be assailed on many a ground. The factum of suppression of the cases relating to embezzlement has been established. Under these circumstances, there is no need to advert to the authorities which are cited by the learned counsel for the appellant that it has no material particulars and there was no ground for corrupt practice. In fact, in a way, it is there. The submission of the appellant that he has passed up to Class X and, therefore, was not aware whether he has to give all the details as he was under the impression that all the cases were one case or off-shoots of the main case. The aforesaid submission is noted to be rejected. Therefore, we are of the view that the High Court is justified in declaring that the election as null and void on the ground of corrupt practice. Issues Involved:1. Definition and implications of 'undue influence' under Section 260 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994.2. Non-disclosure of criminal cases by a candidate at the time of filing nomination and its impact on elections.3. Legal consequences of non-disclosure under election laws, specifically in relation to corrupt practices.Detailed Analysis:1. Definition and Implications of 'Undue Influence' under Section 260 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994:The court addressed the issue of what constitutes 'undue influence' in the context of Section 260 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, which mirrors Section 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The court emphasized that undue influence involves any direct or indirect interference with the free exercise of electoral rights. The court elaborated that undue influence is not limited to physical threats but includes any act that misleads or prevents voters from making an informed choice. The court noted that the concept of undue influence must evolve with constitutional jurisprudence and contemporary values, emphasizing the importance of transparency and the right to information for voters.2. Non-Disclosure of Criminal Cases by a Candidate at the Time of Filing Nomination and Its Impact on Elections:The appellant was elected as the President of Thekampatti Panchayat but was accused of filing a false declaration by suppressing details of pending criminal cases. The Tamil Nadu State Election Commission had mandated that candidates disclose any pending criminal cases punishable with imprisonment for two years or more. The appellant disclosed only one case but omitted eight others, leading to an election petition challenging his election. The court held that non-disclosure of criminal antecedents, especially relating to serious offences, deprives voters of making an informed choice, which is essential for a free and fair election.3. Legal Consequences of Non-Disclosure under Election Laws, Specifically in Relation to Corrupt Practices:The court examined whether non-disclosure of criminal cases amounts to corrupt practice under election laws. It referred to several precedents and statutory provisions, emphasizing that such non-disclosure constitutes 'undue influence' as it interferes with the free exercise of electoral rights. The court noted that the right to contest an election is a statutory right, and any act that misleads voters or suppresses material information undermines the integrity of the electoral process. The court concluded that non-disclosure of criminal cases by a candidate amounts to corrupt practice under Section 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and Section 260 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994.Conclusion:The court affirmed that the non-disclosure of criminal cases by the appellant constituted undue influence and corrupt practice, rendering his election null and void. The court emphasized the importance of transparency and the right to information for voters to make an informed choice, which is fundamental to the democratic process. The appeal was dismissed with costs assessed at Rs. 50,000.