Electoral affidavit disclosure must include cognizance-stage criminal cases; non-disclosure may trigger penal liability under election law.

Electoral affidavit disclosure under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 must be read purposively with Rule 4-A and Form 26 to ensure voters receive complete information on a candidate's criminal antecedents. The disclosure requirement is not limited to cases where charges have been framed; it also covers pending cases where cognizance has been taken. Non-disclosure of information mandated by the prescribed affidavit may amount to a false or incomplete disclosure and attract penal consequences under Section 125-A. The text states that the impugned order could not stand and the complaint had to be reconsidered by the trial court.

---

---

Issues: Whether a candidate seeking election was required to disclose, in the prescribed affidavit, not only pending criminal cases where charges had been framed but also cases where cognizance had been taken by a court; and whether failure to make such disclosure attracted penal consequence under the election law.

Analysis: Section 33-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, Rule 4-A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 and Form 26 had to be read together in the light of the constitutional right of voters to know the antecedents of candidates. The statutory disclosure requirement was not confined to the two categories expressly set out in Section 33-A(1), because Form 26, as substituted, specifically required disclosure of pending cases where cognizance had been taken, in addition to cases where charges had been framed and cases resulting in conviction. The Election Commission's instructions were consistent with this interpretation. In that framework, concealment of information required by the affidavit amounted to a false or incomplete disclosure attracting Section 125-A of the 1951 Act.

Conclusion: The disclosure obligation included cases in which cognizance had been taken, and omission of such information in the affidavit could constitute a punishable breach under Section 125-A.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order could not stand, and the complaint was required to be considered afresh by the trial court.

Ratio Decidendi: The statutory disclosure regime for electoral affidavits must be construed purposively to require complete disclosure of criminal antecedents, including pending cases where cognizance has been taken, and non-disclosure of information mandated by the prescribed affidavit is punishable as concealment or false disclosure.

---