Delhi High Court
Yogender Chandolia vs Vishesh Ravi & Ors on 13 January, 2026
Author: Subramonium Prasad
Bench: Subramonium Prasad
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 13th JANUARY, 2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
+ EL.PET. 10/2020 & I.A. 8728/2020, I.A. 11988/2020
YOGENDER CHANDOLIA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. C. Parkash, Mr. Arvind Kumar
Gupta, Ms. Anushree Rawat, Mr.
Ishan Parashar, Mr. Ankit Verma,
Advs.
versus
VISHESH RAVI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Anupam Srivastava, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Rishikesh Kumar, Advs for
R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
JUDGMENT
1. The present Petition under Section 80 read with Section 100(1)(b) &
(d) of Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "RP Act"), has been filed by the Petitioner seeking a declaration of the election of Returned Candidate / Respondent No.1 from the Assembly Constituency- 23, Karol Bagh (hereinafter referred to as "AC-23"), for the General Election, held in 2020 to the Legislative Assembly of NCT of Delhi, as null and void on the ground of false and mis-representative facts deposed in Affidavit / Form No.26 furnished by the Returned Candidate / Respondent No.1 alongwith his nomination paper, wherein, the Returned Candidate / Respondent No.1 not only deliberately furnished false averments but also concealed the material facts regarding educational qualification with a motive not only to deceive the Returning Officer / Respondent No.13 but also induced / influence the electoral / voters of AC-23.
Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARIOM EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 1 of 55 SINGH KIRMOLIYA Signing Date:16.01.2026 17:39:312. Shorn of the unnecessary details, the facts leading to the present Petition are as follows:
a) The Petitioner is an Electoral / Voter in the AC-23 and also contested the election from the AC-23 as a candidate from Bhartiya Janta Party ("BJP") for the General Election, 2020. The other contesting candidates i.e. Vishesh Ravi ("Respondent No.1"); Gourav Kumar ("Respondent No.2"); Rahul Bharti ("Respondent No.3"); Deepak Kumar ("Respondent No.4"); Sunil ("Respondent No.5");
Dharmender Kanwar ("Respondent No.6"); Lekhraj Jatav ("Respondent No.7"); and Gaurav ("Respondent No.8") are the ones, whose nominations were accepted by the Returning Officer and whereas, the candidates Rahul ("Respondent No.9") and Mahesh Kumar ("Respondent No.10") are the ones, whose nominations papers were rejected by the Returning Officer from AC-23. Thereto, the Respondent No.1 was allowed to contest the said election despite his invalid nomination paper and was also declared as elected in the said election from AC-23.
b) That the Respondent Nos.11 & 12, vide Notification No.CEO/COE/102(22)/DLA-20/2019/8767 dated 14.01.2020, called upon all the 70 Assembly Constituencies of NCT of Delhi to elect members of their respective Legislatives Assembly to contest the elections of NCT of Delhi.
c) The relevant dates of election process for all 70 Assembly Constituencies of NCT of Delhi were as follows:
Last date of filing nominations :21.01.2020 Date for scrutiny of nomination :22.01.2020 Last date for withdrawal of candidatures :24.01.2020 Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARIOM EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 2 of 55 SINGH KIRMOLIYA Signing Date:16.01.2026 17:39:31 Date of poll, if necessary :08.02.2020 Counting of votes for the elections :11.02.2020 Completion of election by :13.02.2020
d) Pursuant to the above-mentioned Notification, the Respondent No.13 was appointed as the Returning Officer in respect of the AC-23.
e) The Respondent No.1, who contested the election as candidate of Aam Aadmi Party (APP) from AC-23, filed his Affidavit / Form No.26 along with the nomination paper for the said constituency.
f) It is stated that after the filing of the nomination paper of the Respondent No.1, the Petitioner filed objections before the Respondent No.13 on the day of scrutiny of the nomination papers during the process of General Elections of Assembly constituencies alleging that the Respondent No.1 had deliberately mentioned false and mis-leading facts in his nomination paper.
g) Pursuant thereto, the objections filed by the Petitioner were rejected by the Respondent No.13 vide Order dated 22.01.2020, which was subsequently challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No.1238/2020 on 30.01.2020. The said Writ Petition was dismissed by this Court vide Order dated 03.02.2020 by placing reliance on an earlier decision of this Court in W.P.(C) No.1032/2020 titled as Kiran Pal Singh Tyagi vs GNCT & Ors. on the ground that the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be maintainable during the process of election. Subsequently, this Order was challenged by the Petitioner in LPA No.70/2020. However, the said LPA was withdrawn by the Petitioner herein vide Order dated 23.03.2022.Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARIOM EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 3 of 55 SINGH KIRMOLIYA Signing Date:16.01.2026 17:39:31
h) Further, the Petitioner filed a Complaint dated 22.02.2020, before the Police authorities i.e. concerned SHO, concerned DCP etc. against the Respondent No.1 for the alleged aforesaid deliberated acts of filing false and mis-leading facts in Affidavit/Form No.26 along with nomination paper regarding his educational qualification.
i) Thereafter, the Respondent No.1, who contested the election as a candidate of Aam Adami Party (APP) from AC-23, Karol Bagh, was declared elected with 67,433 votes as against the Petitioner, at second place with 35,686 votes.
3. Reply has been filed by Respondent No.1. When the matter came up for hearing, elections had already been conducted for the Assembly Elections of Delhi in the year 2025. When this Court put a question to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner as to whether the present Petition has become infructuous, learned Counsel for the Petitioner raised submissions that non-disclosure of correct educational qualification constitutes corrupt practice as per Section 123(2) and 123(4) of the RP Act, and therefore, if found guilty, Respondent No.1 will have to face the consequence under the RP Act.
4. Learned Counsel for the Respondent raised a preliminary objection that non-disclosure of educational qualification will not come within the definition / ambit of corrupt practice. The same is reflected in the Order dated 02.09.2025 passed by this Court, when the matter was reserved on the aspect of maintainability of the present Petition.
5. Hearing has therefore been held limited to the issue as to whether non-disclosure of educational qualification in the Affidavit filed by the Returned Candidate will attract the provisions of Section 123 of the RP Act.
Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARIOM EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 4 of 55 SINGH KIRMOLIYA Signing Date:16.01.2026 17:39:316. Section 100 of the RP Act sets out the ground of declaring an election of a candidate to be void. Section 100 of the RP Act, which is relevant for the present case reads as under:-
"100. Grounds for declaring election to be void.--
[(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) if [the High Court] is of opinion--
(a) that on the date of his election a returned candidate was not qualified, or was disqualified, to be chosen to fill the seat under the Constitution or this Act [* * *] [or the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 (20 of 1963)]; or
(b) that any corrupt practice has been committed by a returned candidate or his election agent or by any other person with the consent of a returned candidate or his election agent; or
(c) that any nomination has been improperly rejected;
or
(d) that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a returned candidate, has been materially affected--
(i) by the improper acceptance of any nomination, or
(ii) by any corrupt practice committed in the interests of the returned candidate by an agent other than his election agent, or
(iii) by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void, or
(iv) by any non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or of this Act or of any rules or orders made under this Act, Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARIOM EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 5 of 55 SINGH KIRMOLIYA Signing Date:16.01.2026 17:39:31 [the High Court] shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void.] (2) If in the opinion of [the High Court], a returned candidate has been guilty by an agent, other than his election agent, of any corrupt practice [* * *] but [the High Court] is satisfied--
(a) that no such corrupt practice was committed at the election by the candidate or his election agent, and every such corrupt practice was committed contrary to the orders, and [without the consent], of the candidate or his election agent;
(b) [Omitted];
(c) that the candidate and his election agent took all reasonable means for preventing the commission of corrupt practices at the election; and
(d) that in all other respects the election was free from any corrupt [* * *] practice on the part of the candidate or any of his agents, then [the High Court] may decide that the election of the returned candidate is not void."
7. Section 123 of the RP Act defines corrupt practice. Section 123 of the RP Act, reads as under:-
"123. Corrupt practices.--
The following shall be deemed to be corrupt practices for the purposes of this Act:--
[(1) "Bribery", that is to say--
(A) any gift, offer or promise by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent of any gratification, to Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARIOM EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 6 of 55 SINGH KIRMOLIYA Signing Date:16.01.2026 17:39:31 any person whomsoever, with the object, directly or indirectly of inducing--
(a) a person to stand or not to stand as, or [to withdraw or not to withdraw] from being a candidate at an election, or
(b) an elector to vote or refrain from voting at an election, or as a reward to--
(i) a person for having so stood or not stood, or for [having withdrawn or not having withdrawn] his candidature; or
(ii) an elector for having voted or refrained from voting;
(B) the receipt of, or agreement to receive, any gratification, whether as a motive or a reward--
(a) by a person for standing or not standing as, or for [withdrawing or not withdrawing] from being, a candidate; or
(b) by any person whomsoever for himself or any other person for voting or refraining from voting, or inducing or attempting to induce any elector to vote or refrain from voting, or any candidate 282[to withdraw or not to withdraw] his candidature.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this clause the term "gratification" is not restricted to pecuniary gratifications or gratifications estimable in money and it includes all forms of entertainment and all forms of employment for reward but it does not include the payment of any expenses bona fide incurred at, or for the purpose of, any election and duly entered in the account of election expenses referred to in Section 78.] Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARIOM EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 7 of 55 SINGH KIRMOLIYA Signing Date:16.01.2026 17:39:31 (2) Undue influence, that is to say, any direct or indirect interference or attempt to interfere on the part of the candidate or his agent, or of any other person [with the consent of the candidate or his election agent], with the free exercise of any electoral right:
Provided that--
(a) without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of this clause any such person as is referred to therein who--
(i) threatens any candidate or any elector, or any person in whom a candidate or an elector is interested, with injury of any kind including social ostracism and excommunication or expulsion from any caste or community; or
(ii) induces or attempts to induce a candidate or an elector to believe that he, or any person in whom he is interested, will become or will be rendered an object of divine displeasure or spiritual censure, shall be deemed to interfere with the free exercise of the electoral right of such candidate or elector within the meaning of this clause;
(b) a declaration of public policy, or a promise of public action, or the mere exercise of a legal right without intent to interfere with an electoral right, shall not be deemed to be interference within the meaning of this clause.
[(3) The appeal by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent to vote or refrain from voting for any person on the ground of his religion, race, caste, community or language or the use of, or appeal to religious symbols or the use of, or appeal to, national symbols, such as the national flag or the national Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARIOM EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 8 of 55 SINGH KIRMOLIYA Signing Date:16.01.2026 17:39:31 emblem, for the furtherance of the prospects of the election of that candidate or for prejudicially affecting the election of any candidate:
[Provided that no symbol allotted under this Act to a candidate shall be deemed to be a religious symbol or a national symbol for the purposes of this clause.] (3-A) The promotion of, or attempt to promote, feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of the citizens of India on grounds of religion, race, caste, community, or language, by a candidate or his agent or any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent for the furtherance of the prospects of the election of that candidate or for prejudicially affecting the election of any candidate.] [(3-B) The propagation of the practice or the commission of sati or its glorification by a candidate or his agent or any other person with the consent of the candidate or his election agent for the furtherance of the prospects of the election of that candidate or for prejudicially affecting the election of any candidate.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this clause, "sati" and "glorification" in relation to sati shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in the Commission of Sati (Prevention) Act, 1987.] (4) The publication by a candidate or his agent or by any other person [with the consent of a candidate or his election agent], of any statement of fact which is false, and which he either believes to be false or does not believe to be true, in relation to the personal character or conduct of any candidate, or in relation to the candidature, or withdrawal, [* * *] of any candidate, being a statement reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of that candidate's election.Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARIOM EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 9 of 55 SINGH KIRMOLIYA Signing Date:16.01.2026 17:39:31
(5) The hiring or procuring, whether on payment or otherwise, of any vehicle or vessel by a candidate or his agent or by any other person [with the consent of a candidate or his election agent], [or the use of such vehicle or vessel for the free conveyance] of any elector (other than the candidate himself, the members of his family or his agent) to or from any polling station provided under Section 25 or a place fixed under sub-section (1) of Section 29 for the poll:
Provided that the hiring of a vehicle or vessel by an elector or by several electors at their joint costs for the purpose of conveying him or them to and from any such polling station or place fixed for the poll shall not be deemed to be a corrupt practice under this clause if the vehicle or vessel so hired is a vehicle or vessel not propelled by mechanical power:
Provided further that the use of any public transport vehicle or vessel or any tramcar or railway carriage by any elector at his own cost for the purpose of going to or coming from any such polling station or place fixed for the poll shall not be deemed to be a corrupt practice under this clause.
Explanation.--In this clause, the expression "vehicle" means any vehicle used or capable of being used for the purpose of road transport, whether propelled by mechanical power or otherwise and whether used for drawing other vehicles or otherwise.
(6) The incurring or authorising of expenditure in contravention of Section 77.
(7) The obtaining or procuring or abetting or attempting to obtain or procure by a candidate or his agent or, by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent, any assistance (other than the giving of vote) for the furtherance of the prospects of that candidate's election, [from any Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARIOM EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 10 of 55 SINGH KIRMOLIYA Signing Date:16.01.2026 17:39:31 person whether or not in the service of the Government] and belonging to any of the following classes, namely:--
(a) gazetted officers;
(b) stipendiary judges and magistrates;
(c) members of the armed forces of the Union;
(d) members of the police forces;
(e) excise officers;
[(f) revenue officers other than village revenue officers known as lambardars, malguzars, patels, deshmukhs or by any other name, whose duty is to collect land revenue and who are remunerated by a share of, or commission on, the amount of land revenue collected by them but who do not discharge any police functions; and]
(g) such other class of persons in the service of the Government as may be prescribed:
[(h) class of persons in the service of a local authority, university, government company or institution or concern or undertaking appointed or deputed by the Election Commission in connection with the conduct of elections : ] [Provided that where any person, in the service of the Government and belonging to any of the classes aforesaid, in the discharge or purported discharge of his official duty, makes any arrangements or provides any facilities or does any other act or thing, for, to, or in relation to, any candidate or his agent or any other person acting with the consent of the candidate or his election agent (whether by reason to the office held by the candidate or for any other reason), such Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARIOM EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 11 of 55 SINGH KIRMOLIYA Signing Date:16.01.2026 17:39:31 arrangements, facilities or act or thing shall not be deemed to be assistance for the furtherance of the prospects of that candidate's election.] [(8) Booth capturing by a candidate or his agent or other person.] Explanation.--(1) In this section the expression "agent" includes an election agent, a polling agent and any person who is held to have acted as an agent [* * *] in connection with the election with the consent of the candidate.
(2) For the purposes of clause (7), a person shall be deemed to assist in the furtherance of the prospects of a candidate's election if he acts as an election agent of that candidate.
[(3) For the purposes of clause (7), notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, the publication in the Official Gazette of the appointment, resignation, termination of service, dismissal or removal from service of a person in the service of the Central Government (including a person serving in connection with the administration of a Union Territory) or of a State Government shall be conclusive proof--
(i) of such appointment, resignation, termination of service, dismissal or removal from service, as the case may be, and
(ii) where the date of taking effect of such appointment, resignation, termination of service, dismissal or removal from service, as the case may be, is stated in such publication, also of the fact that such person was appointed with effect from the said date, or in the case of resignation, termination of service, dismissal or removal from service such person ceased to be in such service with effect from the said date.] Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARIOM EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 12 of 55 SINGH KIRMOLIYA Signing Date:16.01.2026 17:39:31 [(4) For the purposes of clause (8), "booth capturing"
shall have the same meaning as in Section 135-A.]"
8. In the facts of the present case, Section 123(1), 123(2), 123(3), 123(5), 123(6) and 123(7) of the RP Act will not apply. The case of the Petitioner is that the facts of the case would be covered by Section 123(4) of the RP Act.
9. What constitutes a correct practice under Section 123(4) of the RP Act, was a subject matter of discussion before the Apex Court in Sheopat Singh v. Ram Pratap, 1964 SCC OnLine SC 139, wherein the Apex Court has observed as under:-
"4. The first question is whether Ext. 3 is hit by the provisions of Section 123(4) of the Act. Before we consider the terms of the document it will be convenient and useful to notice the ingredients of the section. It reads:
"123. (4) The publication by a candidate or his agent or by another person, with the consent of a candidate or his election agent, of any statement of fact which is false, and which he either believes to be false or does not believe to be true, in relation to the personal character or conduct of any candidate, or in relation to the candidature, or withdrawal of any candidate, being a statement reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of that candidate's election."
The sub-section may be dissected into the following component parts relevant to the present enquiry : (1) the publication of any statement of fact by a candidate; (2) that fact is false; (3) the candidate believes it to be false or does not believe it to be true; (4) the statement is in relation to the personal character or conduct of the candidate; and (5) the said statement is one being reasonable calculated to Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARIOM EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 13 of 55 SINGH KIRMOLIYA Signing Date:16.01.2026 17:39:31 prejudice the prospects of the other candidate's election.
5. An election is the expression of a popular will. It shall be so conducted that the popular will shall be reflected on the basis of the policy of the party which the candidate represents and on his merits. That object cannot be achieved unless freedom of speech is assured at the election and the merits and demerits of a candidate, personal as well as political, are prominently brought to the notice of the voters in the constituency. At the same time it shall not be allowed to degenerate into a vilification campaign aimed at bringing down the personal character or conduct etc. of the candidates without any basis whatsoever. The sub-section is designed to achieve this dual purpose, namely, freedom of speech and prevention of malicious attack on personal character or conduct etc. of rivals. The purity of an election is sought to be maintained without affecting the freedom of expression. The sub- section prohibits any statement of fact in relation to personal character or conduct of any candidate, which is not only false but also the candidate making it either believes it to be false or does not believe it to be true. It implies that a statement of fact relating to the personal character or conduct etc. of a candidate can be made if it is true. Even if it is false, the candidate making it is protected, unless he makes it believing it to be false or not believing it to be true, that is to say statement which are not true made bona fide are also outside the ambit of the provision. To be within the mischief of sub-section (4) of Section 123 of the Act such a statement shall satisfy another test, namely, it shall be a statement reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of the election of the candidate against whom it is made. The word "calculated" means designed : it denotes more than mere likelihood and imports a design to affect voters. It connotes a subjective element, though the actual effect of the statement on the electoral mind reflected in the result Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARIOM EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 14 of 55 SINGH KIRMOLIYA Signing Date:16.01.2026 17:39:31 may afford as basis to ascertain whether the said statement was reasonably calculated to achieve that effect. The emphasis is on the calculated effect, not on the actual result, though the latter proves the former. But what is important to notice is that it is not necessary to establish by positive evidence that the voters, with the knowledge of the contents of the statement, were deflected from voting for the candidate against whom the statement was made.
6. A considerable stress is laid upon the burden of proof, reference may be made to the judgment of this Court in T.K. Gangi Reddy v. M.C. Anjaneya Reddy [(1960) 22 EIR 261, 268] . In that case, dealing with the question of burden of proof, this Court observed:
"The burden of proof has two distinct meanings viz.
(i) the burden of proof as a matter of law and pleading, and (ii) the burden of proof as a matter of adducing evidence.... The first remains constant and the second shifts."
The burden of proof as a matter of law and as a matter of adducing evidence is on the respondent, who seeks to get the election set aside, to establish corrupt practice; but, if he adduces sufficient evidence, as in this case we are satisfied he has, the burden of adducing evidence shifts on to the appellant. That apart when the entire evidence has been adduced in the case the question of burden of proof becomes merely academical. In this case the High Court considered the relevant evidence and came to the conclusion that the respondent has proved his case. No error has been committed by the High Court in this regard.
7. One of the important ingredients of the sub-section is that the statement shall be made in relation to the personal character or conduct etc. of another candidate. What is the meaning of the expression Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARIOM EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 15 of 55 SINGH KIRMOLIYA Signing Date:16.01.2026 17:39:31 "personal character or conduct"? This question has been considered by this Court in two decisions. In Gangi Reddy case [(1960) 22 EIR 261, 268] dealing with the said expression, this Court observed at p. 266 thus:
"The words „personal character or conduct‟ are so clear that they do not require further elucidation or definition. The character of a person may ordinarily be equated with his mental or moral nature. Conduct connotes a person's actions or behaviour.... What is more damaging to a person's character and conduct than to state that he instigated a murder and that he was guilty of violent acts in his political career?"
In Inder Lal v. Lal Singh [1963 Supp (3) SCR 114, 122] this court again, adverting to this aspect observed thus:
"In discussing the distinction between the private character and the public character, sometimes reference is made to the „man beneath the politician‟ and it is said that if a statement of fact affects the man beneath the politican it touches private character and if it affects the politician, it does not touch his private character."
After referring to obvious statements which affect the private character of a person, this Court proceeded to state:
"But there may be cases on the border-line where the false statement may affect both the politician and the man beneath the politician and it is precisely in dealing with cases on the border-line that difficulties are experienced in determining whether the impugned false statement constitutes a corrupt practice or not."Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARIOM EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 16 of 55 SINGH KIRMOLIYA Signing Date:16.01.2026 17:39:31
It is not necessary to refer to other decisions cited at the Bar." (emphasis supplied)
10. Learned Counsel for the Respondent strenuously contends that the purport of Section 123(4) of the RP Act is attracted only when there is a publication by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent of any statement of fact which is false and which he either believes to be false or does not believe to be true in relation to the personal character or conduct of any candidate or in relation to the candidature or withdrawal of any candidate being a statement reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of that candidate‟s election. He states that none of the ingredients of Section 123(4) of the RP Act are attracted in this case after the lapse of five years, and therefore, this case will not come within the scope of corrupt practice.
11. Reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the Respondent on another Judgment passed by the Apex Court in Kumara Nand v. Brijmohan Lal Sharma, 1966 SCC OnLine SC 116, wherein the Apex Court after placing reliance on the Judgment passed in Sheopat Singh (supra) has observed as under:-
"17. This takes us to the next point, namely, that it should have been proved that Avinash Chander who recited the poem at the meeting believed the statement to be false or did not believe it to be true and that on this point Avinash Chander was not even questioned though he appeared as a witness. The High Court has held that the belief of Avinash Chander is immaterial, and that it is the belief of the appellant that matters. We are of opinion that this view of the High Court is correct. Section 123(4) runs thus:
"(4) The publication by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARIOM EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 17 of 55 SINGH KIRMOLIYA Signing Date:16.01.2026 17:39:31 or his election agent, of any statement of fact which is false, and which he either believes to be false or does not believe to be true, in relation to the personal character or conduct of any candidate, or in relation to the candidature, or withdrawal of any candidate, being a statement reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of that candidate's election.
***"
The sub-section requires; (i) publication of any statement of fact by a candidate, (ii) that fact is false,
(iii) the candidate believes it to be false or does not believe it to be true, (iv) the statement is in relation to the personal character or conduct of another candidate; and (v) the said statement is one being reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of the other candidate's election : (see Sheopat Singh v. Ram Pratap [(1965) 1 SCR 175] . This case thus lays down that the person with whose belief the provision is concerned is ordinarily the candidate who, if we may say so, is responsible for the publication. The responsibility of the candidate for the publication arises if he publishes the thing himself. He is equally responsible for the publication if it is published by his agent. Thirdly he is also responsible where the thing is published by any other person but with the consent of the candidate or his election agent. In all three cases the responsibility is of the candidate and it is ordinarily the candidate's belief that matters for this purpose. If the candidate either believes the statement to be false or does not believe it to be true he would be responsible under Section 123(4). In the present case the poem was not actually read by the appellant, but it was read in his presence at a meeting at which he was presiding by Avinash Chander. In these circumstances the High Court was right in coming to the conclusion that the recitation of the poem by Avinash Chander at the meeting amounted to the publication of the false Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARIOM EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 18 of 55 SINGH KIRMOLIYA Signing Date:16.01.2026 17:39:31 statement of fact contained in it by another person with the consent of the candidate, and in this case, even of his election agent who was also present at the meeting.
But the responsibility for such publication in the circumstances of this case is of the candidate and it is the candidate's belief that matters and not the belief of the person who actually read it with the consent of the candidate. What would be the position in a case where the candidate had no knowledge at all of the publication before it was made need not be considered for that is not so here. It is not disputed in this case that the statement that the respondent was the greatest of all thieves, was false. It is also not seriously challenged that the appellant did not believe it to be true. The contention that Avinash Chander's belief should have been proved must therefore fail.
18. Then we come to the question of onus. In this connection reliance is placed on Dr Jagjit Singh v. Giani Kartar Singh [AIR 1966 SC 773] . In that case it was held that the onus to prove the essential ingredients prescribed by sub-section (4) of Section 123 of the Act is on him who alleges publication of false statements of fact. The election petitioner has to prove that the impugned statement has been published by the candidate or his agent, or if by any other person, with the consent of the candidate or his election agent. He has further to show that the impugned statement of fact is false and that the candidate either believed that statement to be false or did not believe it to be true. It has further to be proved inter alia that the statement was in relation to the personal character or conduct of the complaining candidate. Finally, it has to be shown that the publication was reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of the complaining candidate's election. But though the onus is on the election petitioner to show all these things, the main things that the election petitioner has to prove are that such a publication was made of a statement of fact and that that statement is false and is Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARIOM EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 19 of 55 SINGH KIRMOLIYA Signing Date:16.01.2026 17:39:31 with respect to the personal character or conduct of the election petitioner. The burden of proving that the candidate publishing the statement believed it to be false or did not believe it to be true though on the complaining candidate is very light and would be discharged by the complaining candidate swearing to that effect. Thereafter it would be for the candidate publishing the statement to prove otherwise. The question whether the statement was reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of the election of the candidate against whom it was made would generally be a matter of inference. So the main onus on an election petitioner under Section 123(4) is to show that a statement of fact was published by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of the candidate or his election agent and also to show that that statement was false and related to his personal character or conduct. Once that is proved and the complaining candidate has sworn as above indicated, the burden shifts to the candidate making the false statement of fact to show what his belief was. The further question as to prejudice to the prospects of election is generally a matter of inference to be arrived at by the Tribunal on the facts and circumstances of each case.
19. In the present case the main onus that lay on the respondent has been discharged. He has proved that there was a publication of the nature envisaged under Section 123(4) of the Act. He has also proved that the statement of fact was made with respect to him. He has further proved that that statement was false and related to his personal character or conduct. There can be no doubt that a statement of this nature calling one candidate a thief or the greatest of all thieves is reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of his election. He further swore that the statement was false to the knowledge of the appellant and the latter did not believe it to be true. It was then for the appellant to show what his belief was. The burden having thus Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARIOM EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 20 of 55 SINGH KIRMOLIYA Signing Date:16.01.2026 17:39:31 shifted we are of opinion that it was for the appellant to show either that the statement was true or that he believed it to be true. This the appellant has failed to do. The High Court therefore rightly held that the respondent had discharged the burden which lay on him."
12. This Court would have rejected the petition straightaway by placing reliance on the aforementioned two judgments but for the fact that pursuant to the judgments of the Apex Court, there have been amendments to the RP Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The present petition deals with the elections which are conducted in the year 2020. After five years fresh elections are held. The question in this case is not as to whether the election has to be declared as null and void because of non-compliance of the provisions of the Constitution or of this Act or of any other rules or orders made under this Act which is a ground under Section 100 (1)(d)(4), but the question that is being considered is whether filing of a false Affidavit/Form 26 along with the nomination paper amounts to corrupt practice under Section 123 of the RP Act. This Court is, therefore, restricting itself only to the aspect as to whether the allegation that the Respondent has filed false Affidavit/Form 26 along with the nomination paper amounts to corrupt practice or not. This is because since five years have passed even assuming that the Respondent has furnished false information in Affidavit/Form 26 along with the nomination paper amounts to violation of Section 100(1)(d)(4) of the RP Act, that issue need not be gone into as the petition has become infructuous. This Court is only proceeding because of the specific contention of the Petitioner that the actions of the Petitioner amounts to corrupt practice and if it is held that it is a corrupt practice, it will have other consequences which will prohibit the Respondent from Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARIOM EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 21 of 55 SINGH KIRMOLIYA Signing Date:16.01.2026 17:39:31 contesting in future elections and will also impact the results of the elections held in the year 2025.
13. While dealing with the question as to whether all the information should be provided to the voter before he casts his vote, the Apex Court in Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms, (2002) 5 SCC 294, has observed as under:-
"48. The Election Commission is directed to call for information on affidavit by issuing necessary order in exercise of its power under Article 324 of the Constitution of India from each candidate seeking election to Parliament or a State Legislature as a necessary part of his nomination paper, furnishing therein, information on the following aspects in relation to his/her candidature:
(1) Whether the candidate is convicted/acquitted/discharged of any criminal offence in the past -- if any, whether he is punished with imprisonment or fine.
(2) Prior to six months of filing of nomination, whether the candidate is accused in any pending case, of any offence punishable with imprisonment for two years or more, and in which charge is framed or cognizance is taken by the court of law. If so, the details thereof.
(3) The assets (immovable, movable, bank balance, etc.) of a candidate and of his/her spouse and that of dependants.
(4) Liabilities, if any, particularly whether there are any overdues of any public financial institution or government dues.
(5) The educational qualifications of the candidate.Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARIOM EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 22 of 55 SINGH KIRMOLIYA Signing Date:16.01.2026 17:39:31
49. It is to be stated that the Election Commission has from time to time issued instructions/orders to meet with the situation where the field is unoccupied by the legislation. Hence, the norms and modalities to carry out and give effect to the aforesaid directions should be drawn up properly by the Election Commission as early as possible and in any case within two months."
(emphasis supplied)
14. In pursuance to the directions of the Apex Court, vide Notification No.S.O.935(E), dated 08.09.2002, Rule 4A was introduced in the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961. Rule 4A of the of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, reads as under:-
"4-A. Form of affidavit to be filed at the time of delivering nomination paper.--
The candidate or his proposer, as the case may be, shall, at the time of delivering to the returning officer the nomination paper under sub-section (1) of Section 33 of the Act, also deliver to him an affidavit sworn by the candidate before a Magistrate of the first class or a Notary in Form 26."
15. For the sake of completion, Section 33, 33A and 33B of the RP Act is also being reproduced as under:-
"[33. Presentation of nomination paper and requirements for a valid nomination.--
(1) On or before the date appointed under clause (a) of Section 30 each candidate shall, either in person or by his proposer, between the hours of eleven o'clock in the forenoon and three o'clock in the afternoon deliver to the returning officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 31 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate and by an elector of the constituency as proposer:Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARIOM EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 23 of 55 SINGH KIRMOLIYA Signing Date:16.01.2026 17:39:31
[Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognised political party, shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless the nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency:
Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the Returning Officer on a day which is a public holiday.
Provided also that in the case of a local authorities' constituency, graduates' constituency or teachers' constituency, the reference to „an elector of the constituency as proposer‟ shall be construed as a reference to ten per cent of the electors of the constituency or ten such electors, whichever is less, as proposers.] [(1-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1), for election to the Legislative Assembly of Sikkim (deemed to be the Legislative Assembly of that State duly constituted under the Constitution), the nomination paper to be delivered to the returning officer shall be in such form and manner as may be prescribed:
Provided that the said nomination paper shall be subscribed by the candidate as assenting to the nomination, and--
(a) in the case of a seat reserved for Sikkimese of Bhutia-Lepcha origin, also by at least twenty electors of the constituency as proposers and twenty electors of the constituency as seconders;
(b) in the case of a seat reserved for Sanghas, also by at least twenty electors of the constituency as proposers and at least twenty electors of the constituency as seconders;Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARIOM EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 24 of 55 SINGH KIRMOLIYA Signing Date:16.01.2026 17:39:31
(c) in the case of a seat reserved for Sikkimese of Nepali origin, by an elector of the constituency as proposer:
Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday.] (2) In a constituency where any seat is reserved, a candidate shall not be deemed to be qualified to be chosen to fill that seat unless his nomination paper contains a declaration by him specifying the particular caste or tribe of which he is a member and the area in relation to which that caste or tribe is a Scheduled Caste or, as the case may be, a Scheduled Tribe of the State.
(3) Where the candidate is a person who, having held any office referred to in 102[Section 9] has been dismissed and a period of five years has not elapsed since the dismissal, such person shall not be deemed to be duly nominated as a candidate unless his nomination paper is accompanied by a certificate issued in the prescribed manner by the Election Commission to the effect that he has not been dismissed for corruption or disloyalty to the State.
(4) On the presentation of a nomination paper, the returning officer shall satisfy himself that the names and electoral roll numbers of the candidate and his proposer as entered in the nomination paper are the same as those entered in the electoral rolls:
[Provided that no misnomer or inaccurate description or clerical, technical or printing error in regard to the name of the candidate or his proposer or any other person, or in regard to any place, mentioned in the electoral roll or the nomination paper and no clerical, Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARIOM EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 25 of 55 SINGH KIRMOLIYA Signing Date:16.01.2026 17:39:31 technical or printing error in regard to the electoral roll numbers of any such person in the electoral roll or the nomination paper, shall affect the full operation of the electoral roll or the nomination paper with respect to such person or place in any case where the description in regard to the name of the person or place is such as to be commonly understood; and the returning officer shall permit any such misnomer or inaccurate description or clerical, technical or printing error to be corrected and where necessary, direct that any such misnomer, inaccurate description, clerical, technical or printing error in the electoral roll or in the nomination paper shall be overlooked.] (5) Where the candidate is an elector of a different constituency, a copy of the electoral roll of that constituency or of the relevant part thereof or a certified copy of the relevant entries in such roll shall, unless it has been filed along with the nomination paper, be produced before the returning officer at the time of scrutiny.
[(6) Nothing in this section shall prevent any candidate from being nominated by more than one nomination paper:
Provided that not more than four nomination papers shall be presented by or on behalf of any candidate or accepted by the returning officer for election in the same constituency.]] [(7) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (6) or in any other provisions of this Act, a person shall not be nominated as a candidate for election,--
(a) in the case of a general election to the House of the People (whether or not held simultaneously from all Parliamentary constituencies), from more than two Parliamentary constituencies;Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARIOM EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 26 of 55 SINGH KIRMOLIYA Signing Date:16.01.2026 17:39:31
(b) in the case of a general election to the Legislative Assembly of a State (whether or not held simultaneously from all Assembly constituencies), from more than two Assembly constituencies in that State;
(c) in the case of a biennial election to the Legislative Council of a State having such Council, from more than two Council constituencies in the State;
(d) in the case of a biennial election to the Council of States for filling two or more seats allotted to a State, for filling more than two such seats;
(e) in the case of bye-elections to the House of the People from two or more Parliamentary constituencies which are held simultaneously, from more than two such Parliamentary constituencies;
(f) in the case of bye-elections to the Legislative Assembly of a State from two or more Assembly constituencies which are held simultaneously, from more than two such Assembly constituencies;
(g) in the case of bye-elections to the Council of States for filling two or more seats allotted to a State, which are held simultaneously, for filling more than two such seats;
(h) in the case of bye-elections to the Legislative Council of a State having such Council from two or more Council constituencies which are held simultaneously, from more than two such Council constituencies.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this sub-section, two or more bye-elections shall be deemed to be held simultaneously where the notification calling such bye- elections are issued by the Election Commission under Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARIOM EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 27 of 55 SINGH KIRMOLIYA Signing Date:16.01.2026 17:39:31 Sections 147, 149, 150 or, as the case may be, 151 on the same date.] [33-A. Right to information.--
(1) A candidate shall, apart from any information which he is required to furnish, under this Act or the rules made thereunder, in his nomination paper delivered under sub-section (1) of Section 33, also furnish the information as to whether--
(i) he is accused of any offence punishable with imprisonment for two years or more in a pending case in which a charge has been framed by the court of competent jurisdiction;
(ii) he has been convicted of an offence [other than any offence referred to in sub-section (1) or sub- section (2), or covered in sub-section (3), of Section 8 and sentenced to imprisonment for one year or more.
(2) The candidate or his proposer, as the case may be, shall, at the time of delivering to the returning officer the nomination paper under sub-section (1) of Section 33, also deliver to him an affidavit sworn by the candidate in a prescribed form verifying the information specified in sub-section (1).
(3) The returning officer shall, as soon as may be after the furnishing of information to him under sub-section (1), display the aforesaid information by affixing a copy of the affidavit, delivered under sub-section (2), at a conspicuous place at his office for the information of the electors relating to a constituency for which the nomination paper is delivered.] [33-B. Candidate to furnish information only under the Act and the rules.--
Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARIOM EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 28 of 55 SINGH KIRMOLIYA Signing Date:16.01.2026 17:39:31Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court or any direction, order or any other instruction issued by the Election Commission, no candidate shall be liable to disclose or furnish any such information, in respect of his election, which is not required to be disclosed or furnished under this Act or the rules made thereunder.]
16. Form-26 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 which has now been made mandatory to be filed, is reproduced as under:-
(See Rule 4-A) Please affix your recent passport size photograph here Affidavit to be filed by the candidate along with nomination paper before the returning officer for election to .............................. .(name of the House) from.................................constituency (Name of the constituency) PART A I ....................................., **son/daughter/wife of .......................................... Aged..................... years, resident of .......................................... (mention full postal address), a candidate at the above election, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under-- (1) I am a candidate set up by............................(**name of the political party)/**am contesting as an Independent candidate.
(**Strike out whichever is not applicable) (2) My name is enrolled in .................................................(Name of the constituency and the State), at Serial No. .....................in Part No. ...................
[(3) My contact telephone number(s) is/are.............................. and my E-mail ID (if any) is ........................ and my social media account(s) (if any) is/are (i) .............................. (ii) ............................. (iii) ............................] [(4) Details of Permanent Account Number (PAN) and status of filing of income tax return:
Sl. Names PAN The financial year for Total income shown in income tax No. which the last income- return (in Rupees) for the last five tax return has been filed. Financial Years (as on the 31st March).
1. Self (i)
(ii) Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARIOM EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 29 of 55 SINGH KIRMOLIYA Signing Date:16.01.2026 17:39:31
(iii)
(iv)
(v) 2 Spouse (i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
3. HUF (If the (i) Candidate is Karta or (ii) Coparcener)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
4. Dependent-1 (i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
5. Dependent-2 (i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
6. Dependent-3 (i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v) Note : It is mandatory for PAN holder to mention PAN and in case of no PAN, it should be clearly stated "No PAN allotted".
[(5) Pending criminal cases.--
(i) I declare that there is no pending criminal case against me. (Tick this alternative, if there is no criminal case pending against the Candidate and write NOT APPLICABLE against alternative (ii) below) Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARIOM EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 30 of 55 SINGH KIRMOLIYA Signing Date:16.01.2026 17:39:31 OR
(ii) The following criminal cases are pending against me:
(If there are pending criminal cases against the candidate, then tick this alternative and score off alternative (i) above, and give details of all pending cases in the Table below) TABLE
(a) FIR No. with name and address of Police Station concerned
(b) Case No. with Name of the Court
(i) Sections of concerned Acts/Codes involved (give no. of the section, e.g. Section .......of IPC, etc.).
(d) Brief description of offence
(e) Whether charges have been framed (mention YES or NO)
(f) If answer against item (e) above is YES, then give the date on which charges were framed
(g) Whether any Appeal/Application for revision has been filed against the proceedings (Mention YES or NO) (6) Cases of conviction.--
(i) I declare that I have not been convicted for any criminal offence.
(Tick this alternative, if the candidate has not been convicted and write NOT APPLICABLE against alternative (ii) below) OR
(ii) I have been convicted for the offences mentioned below:
(If the candidate has been convicted, then tick this alternative and score off alternative (i) above, and give details in the Table given below) TABLE
(a) Case No.
(b) Name of the Court
(c) Sections of Acts/Codes involved (give no. of the Section, e.g. Section .......of IPC, etc.)
(d) Brief description of offence for which convicted
(e) Dates of orders of conviction
(f) Punishment imposed
(g) Whether any Appeal has been filed against conviction order (Mention YES or No)
(h) If answer to item (g) above is YES, give details and present status of appeal Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARIOM EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 31 of 55 SINGH KIRMOLIYA Signing Date:16.01.2026 17:39:31 (6-A) I have given full and up-to-date information to my political party about all pending criminal cases against me and about all cases of conviction as given in paragraphs (5) and (6).
[candidates to whom this item is not applicable should clearly write NOT APPLICABLE IN VIEW OF ENTRIES IN PARAGRAPHS 5(i) and 6(i) above.] Note:
1. Details should be entered clearly and legibly in BOLD letters
2. Details to be given separately for each case under different columns against each item.
3. Details should be given in reverse chronological order, i.e., the latest case to be mentioned first and backwards in the order of dates for the other cases.
4. Additional sheet may be added if required.
5. Candidate is responsible for supplying all information in compliance of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in W.P. (C) No. 536 of 2011.] xxx xxx xxx (10) My educational qualification is as under--
.................................................................................................. (Give details of highest School/University education mentioning the full form of the certificate/diploma/degree course, name of the School/College/University and the year in which the course was completed.) PART B (11) Abstract of the details given in (1) to (10) of Part A:
1. Name of the candidate Sh./Smt./Kum.
2. Full postal address
3. Number and name of the constituency and State
4. Name of the political party which set up the candidate (otherwise write „Independent‟) [5. Total number of pending criminal cases
6. Total number of cases in which convicted.].
7. PAN of Year for Total income shown which last income tax return filed
(a) Candidate
(b) Spouse [(c) HUF
(d) Dependents] Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARIOM EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 32 of 55 SINGH KIRMOLIYA Signing Date:16.01.2026 17:39:31
8. [Details of Assets and Liabilities (including offshore assets) in Rupees] Description Self Spouse [HUF] Dependent-I Dependent- Dependent-
II III A. Movable Assets (Total Value) B Immovable Asset I. Purchase Price of self-
acquired immovable property II. Development/Construction cost of immovable property after purchase (if applicable) III. Approximate Current market price of--
(a) self-acquired assets (Total Value)
(b) inherited assets (Total Value)
9. Liabilities
(i) Government dues (Total)
(ii) Loans from Bank, Financial Institutions and others (Total)
10. Liabilities that are under dispute
(i) Government dues (Total)
(ii) Loans from Bank, Financial Institutions and others (Total)
11. Highest educational qualification: (Give details of highest School/University education mentioning the full form of the certificate/diploma/degree course, name of the School/College/University and the year in which the course was completed.) VERIFICATION I, the deponent, abovenamed, do hereby verify and declare that the contents of this affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom. I further declare that--
(a) there is no case of conviction or pending case against me other than those mentioned in Items 5 and 6 of Part A and B above;
(b) I, my spouse, or my dependents do not have any asset or liability, other than those mentioned in Items 7 and 8 of Part A and Items 8, 9 and 10 of Part B above.
Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARIOM EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 33 of 55 SINGH KIRMOLIYA Signing Date:16.01.2026 17:39:31Verified at........................this the.....................day of..............................
DEPONENT Note : 1. Affidavit should be filed latest by 3.00 PM on the last day of filing nominations.
Note : 2. Affidavit should be sworn before an Oath Commissioner or Magistrate of the First Class or before a Notary Public.
Note : 3. All column should be filled up and no column to be left blank. If there is no information to furnish in respect of any item, either "Nil" or "Not applicable", as the case may be, should be mentioned.
Note : 4. The Affidavit should be either typed or written legibly and neatly.] [Note : 5. Each page of the Affidavit should be signed by the deponent and the Affidavit should bear on each page the stamp of the Notary or Oath Commissioner or Magistrate before whom the Affidavit is sworn."
(emphasis supplied)
17. Column 10 of Part A and Column 11 of Part B of Form-26 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 which is now mandatory to be filled by the candidates, mandates the highest educational qualification of the candidate be mentioned.
18. A perusal of the abovementioned amendments reveal that now a candidate has to give his educational qualification giving the details of highest school / university education mentioning the full form of the certificate / diploma / degree course.
19. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Nand Ram Bagri v. Jai Kishan & Ors., 2013 SCC OnLine Del 1826, while considering an election petition, dealt with the issue as to whether giving false information regarding educational qualification would amount to corrupt practice or not has held that false information / affidavit regarding educational qualification would amount to corrupt practice. There were 12 issues which were framed in the said case. The 7th issue reads as under:-
Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARIOM EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 34 of 55 SINGH KIRMOLIYA Signing Date:16.01.2026 17:39:31"7. Whether non disclosure of correct educational qualification constitute corrupt practice as per Section 123(2) & 123(4) of the R.P. Act. OPP"
20. The Coordinate Bench of this Court while dealing with the issue has observed as under:-
"42. Though in view of the aforesaid finding there is no need to answer the legal question whether falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression in the affidavit accompanying the Nomination Form can constitute a ground for setting aside of the election but for the sake of completeness and in accordance with the requirements of CPC, the said question is also required to be answered.
43. I am unable to digest that the only consequence of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression in the affidavit in Form 26 along with the Nomination Form can be under Section 125A i.e. attracting punishment with imprisonment as provided therein. The reasons which prevailed with the Supreme Court in Association for Democratic Reforms for requiring such disclosure were not to punish a candidate for wrong disclosure but to vest the voters with a right to elect on the basis of antecedents, past performance, educational qualifications etc. of a candidate and all which was held to be essential for the health of democracy and fair election and to maintain purity of elections. Logically, if the disclosure is false, the election in pursuance thereto would be a impure one. Without entering into the nitty-gritty of law, I find it hard to sustain that the only consequence of an impure election is to punish the elected candidate with imprisonment, while allowing him to continue as the elected representative; to hold so would, again applying the reasoning given by the Supreme Court, be bad for the health of democracy and fair elections.Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARIOM EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 35 of 55 SINGH KIRMOLIYA Signing Date:16.01.2026 17:39:31
44. The common theme running in Section 123 of the Act defining corrupt practices on commission whereof by a returned candidate an election under Section 100(1)(b) of the Act becomes void, is of interference with the fair choice to be made by the electorate. It is for this reason that bribery and exercise of undue influence have been deemed to be corrupt practice. I have wondered whether furnishing of wrong information would not res ipsa loquitur be undue influence within the meaning of Section 123(2) of the RP Act. The argument of the counsel for the respondent no. 1 that there being no corresponding change in Section 100 or Section 123 of the Act pursuant to the amendments of the year 2002 in the RP Act and the Conduct of Elections Rules, the violations of the said amendments would not be a ground for declaration of a election to be void, in my view is to be noted to be rejected. I may record that the contention before the Supreme court in Association for Democratic Reforms also was that till suitable amendments are made in the Act and the Rules, directions should not have been issued and that it is for the political parties to decide whether such amendments should be brought and carried out in the Act and the Rules which nowhere disqualified a candidate for non disclosure and thus the directions would be of no consequence. However the said argument was negatived by the Supreme Court and it was held that the Supreme Court has ample powers to make orders which have the effect of law and if need be by issuing necessary directions to fill the vacuum till such time the Legislature steps in to cover the gap. It was further held that the members of a democratic society should be sufficiently informed so that they may take intelligently the decisions which may affect themselves and this would include their decision of casting votes in favour of a particular candidate and that disclosure by the candidate of such information would strengthen the voters in taking appropriate decision of casting their votes.Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARIOM EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 36 of 55 SINGH KIRMOLIYA Signing Date:16.01.2026 17:39:31
45. In my opinion, the argument that a falsity, suppression or misrepresentation in the disclosure would not affect the outcome/result of a election would defeat the very purpose of the vital change brought about by Association for Democratic Reforms and would render the said judgment otiose and hollow.
46. I have intentionally observed above that the disclosure which is false, suppresses material facts or misrepresents, res ipsa loquitur amounts to unduly influencing the voters inasmuch as it is found that it is virtually impossible to adjudicate the effect of such falsehood/misrepresentation/suppression. In the present case also, both parties have examined voters supporting their own case, with voters examined by the petitioner stating that they were influenced and would not have cast their votes in favour of the respondent no. 1 had they known that he was not Xth class pass and the voters examined by the respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 10 stating that the said factor would not have influenced their vote. I am also of the view that unless the effect of falsehood is read into Section 100 and Section 123, the amendment to the Act and the Rules would remain impotent. The amendment by incorporation of Section 125A in my view is not intended to exclude the filing of a false affidavit from the domain of corrupt practice and/or from being a ground for setting aside of the election. Rather I feel that the remedy of prosecution for filing of a false affidavit, was in any case, even in the absence of Section 125A, available. There may of course be cases where the falsehood/suppression/misrepresentation which may be bona fide or inconsequential or may be such which requires proof of having prejudiced the prospect of election and in which case the Court may require evidence to be led. I may also observe that though the judgments on Section 123(4) of a pre Association for Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARIOM EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 37 of 55 SINGH KIRMOLIYA Signing Date:16.01.2026 17:39:31 Democratic Reforms era may have been in relation to statement of facts in relation to personal character or conduct of a „rival‟ candidate but I do not find any limitation in the language thereof to restrict its scope to statements made by one candidate against his rivals/other candidate/s only and to make it inapplicable to false statements made by a candidate in relation to his own personal character or conduct, if it is reasonable calculated to prejudice the prospects of „other‟ candidate/s election. We cannot be unmindful of the fact that pre Association for Democratic Reforms, there was no requirement for the candidate to publish any statement of fact relating to his/her own personal character or conduct and hence the question of falsity thereof did not arise and thus the use in Section 123(4) of the words „that candidate's election‟. However now when the law requires the candidate to publish statements concerning his own personal character and conduct, the purposive interpretation of Section 123(4) would make it applicable to those statements also."
(emphasis supplied)
21. This Court is not in a position to subscribe to the view taken by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Nand Ram Bagri (supra) more particularly in view of the later judgment passed by the Apex Court in Ajmera Shyam v. Kova Laxmi & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1723. The Apex Court after quoting the Judgment passed in Association for Democratic Reforms (supra) and more particularly to Paragraph 48 and 49 of the said Judgment, as quoted above, has held as under:-
"9. ANALYSIS OF THE RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS:
9.1 Having examined the legal and constitutional aspects of the right to information in relation to the election process, we can now turn our attention to the Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARIOM EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 38 of 55 SINGH KIRMOLIYA Signing Date:16.01.2026 17:39:31 relevant statutory provisions governing the election process, more particularly relating to the annulment of election due to non-disclosure of information.
9.2 As empowered by Article 327 of the Constitution, the Parliament enacted the Representation of the People Act, 1951, to establish the procedure for elections to the Houses of Parliament and the State Legislatures, covering qualifications and disqualifications for membership, corrupt practices, other offences related to such elections, and resolution of doubts and disputes arising from or connected to these elections.
Chapter II of Part II of the Act provides for qualifications for membership of State Legislatures and Chapter III provides for disqualifications for membership of State Legislatures.
Section 5 under Chapter II provides that a person shall not be qualified to be chosen to fill a seat in the Legislative Assembly of a State unless he is an elector for any Assembly constituency in that State.
Section 8 of Chapter III on the other hand stipulates the conditions under which a person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House of Parliament or of the Legislature of a State. It provides for the grounds for disqualification of a candidate upon conviction for certain offences. When a person is convicted of offences punishable under any of the acts mentioned therein, he shall be disqualified from contesting election from the date of conviction and shall continue to be disqualified for a further period of six years since his release, as the case may be.
Section 8A provides for disqualification on the ground of corrupt practices.
Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARIOM EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 39 of 55 SINGH KIRMOLIYA Signing Date:16.01.2026 17:39:31Section 9 lists the grounds for disqualification for dismissal for corruption or disloyalty for a period of five years from the date of such dismissal.
Sections 9A and 10 entail disqualification under certain circumstances viz., if there subsists a contract between the candidate and the appropriate Government, or if the candidate holds an office under a Government company as mentioned therein.
Further, Section 10A provides for disqualification on the failure to lodge an account of election expenses.
Section 11 empowers the Election Commission to remove any of the abovementioned disqualifications for reasons to be recorded.
Section 100 deals with the grounds for declaring election to be void.
9.3 In the present case we are primarily concerned with the applicability of Section 100 of the Act. If we carefully analyse the nature of grounds for declaring an election to be void under Section 100 of the Act, these can be broadly categorized in the following manner.
9.3.1 As regards the ground contemplated under Section 100(1)(a) of the Act, on the date of the election, the returned candidate was either not qualified or disqualified from being chosen to fill the seat under the Constitution, the Act, or the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963. This is a ground which is relatable to other provisions of the Act and was already in existence in the statute enacted by the Parliament before the judicial intervention through Association for Democratic Reforms (supra), PUCL (supra), etc. The existence of facts applicable to this ground predates the election process. Thus, a candidate who was not eligible--either because he was Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARIOM EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 40 of 55 SINGH KIRMOLIYA Signing Date:16.01.2026 17:39:31 "not qualified" or "disqualified" is an attribute existing prior to the election process.
This ground, as is clear, goes to the root of the eligibility of the candidate and there can be no ambiguity in the application of this rule. There is no scope for judicial consideration as to whether such a deficiency is substantial or not. Either it exists or does not exist, and such consideration cannot arise for the reason that once a candidate is found ineligible or disqualified as under Chapter II & Chapter III of the Act, it will be covered under Section 100(1)(a) of the Act and the election shall be declared void. There is no subjective element involved in this process for determination. Neither can there be any liberal approach to it as such a deficiency is fatal to the candidacy.
9.3.2 Regarding the second ground related to corrupt practice as mentioned under Section 100(1)(b) of the Act, the questioned acts will clearly be those committed by the candidate during the election process. This second ground pertains specifically to the acts committed by the returned candidate or on behalf of the returned candidate and is not connected to the candidate's attributes or qualifications. It is also a ground that already existed in the statute as enacted by Parliament before the judicial intervention as mentioned above.
Such acts are censured to ensure the integrity of the election process, to prevent voters from being misled or unduly influenced, and are essential for the proper conduct of elections, and there can be no leniency when addressing the issue of corrupt practices.
9.3.3 As regards the other grounds concerning improper acceptance or rejection of nominations, or the non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution, or the Act, or rules, or orders made Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARIOM EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 41 of 55 SINGH KIRMOLIYA Signing Date:16.01.2026 17:39:31 under the Act, it is observed that these issues are mainly technical and involve some element of subjectivity, since no nomination paper can be rejected for a defect that is not of a substantial character as provided under Section 36 (4) of the Act.
9.4 In light of the foregoing legal position, it is clear that disclosure concerning criminal antecedents is linked to the existing provisions under Section 8 and 9 of the Act, which specify that a candidate would be disqualified if convicted of any offences listed under Section 8 or dismissed for corruption or disloyalty under Section 9 of the Act.
9.5 However, regarding voidance of the election of the returned candidates due to non-disclosure of assets, it is not explicitly stated in the Act. It has become part of election law through judicial intervention and it is to be mentioned as part of the Form 26 Affidavit filed during the nomination process, as discussed above.
9.6 At the same time, it has to be kept in mind that considering the evolution of law concerning disclosure of information relating to criminal antecedents and assets and the "raison d'etre" for the same, these considerations cannot be placed at the same pedestal. By its very nature, the requirement to disclose criminal antecedents has to be examined more scrupulously and dealt with more strictly as the involvement of criminals is a bane in our electoral system, which was the prime focus of judicial intervention which is reflected in the insertion of Section 33A of the Act. On the other hand, disclosure of information about assets and educational qualification were attending requirements to improve the quality of the electoral process and the elected members for which no specific statutory provision has been made in the Act, but forms part of the information required to be mentioned in the Form 26 Affidavit in terms of Rule 4A.
Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARIOM EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 42 of 55 SINGH KIRMOLIYA Signing Date:16.01.2026 17:39:319.7 Certainly, there was concern also about assets when it was noticed that apart from criminal acts of the candidates, money was being misused by the candidates to influence the voters. Further, it was also observed that there is a tendency of the elected members to misuse their official positions to enrich themselves at the expense of public funds while in office. It is for these reasons that it was felt that candidates must disclose their assets when seeking re- election.
9.8 It may, however, be noted that there can be no disqualification under the law based on a candidate's wealth or financial status unlike in the case of candidates with criminal antecedents, who will stand disqualified if convicted of certain offences mentioned under Section 8 of the Act. There is no restriction on contesting an election due to having immense wealth or being impoverished in a democracy. Ultimately, the people elect their representative regardless of the candidate's financial condition, judging instead primarily on whether the candidate can genuinely represent their interest.
9.9 This aspect has been succinctly articulated by P. Venkatarama Reddi, J in PUCL (supra) in paragraphs no. 119 and 120 of the judgment as quoted earlier, which in essence conveys the idea that the purpose of disclosure of assets and liabilities of the candidate is not to associate with the prospect or eligibility of his candidature or his capacity to spend money in the electoral process, but primarily to evaluate at a subsequent point in time after the election, whether there has been disproportionate increase in wealth by misusing official position and by self-aggrandizement.
9.10 This issue relating to disclosure of information may be viewed from another perspective.
Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARIOM EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 43 of 55 SINGH KIRMOLIYA Signing Date:16.01.2026 17:39:31There is a provision under the statute to probe the nomination of a candidate before the election is held and result is declared, i.e., during the scrutiny by the Returning Officer, who can reject it at the nomination stage if there has been a failure to disclose necessary information by the candidate.
This exercise of examining the validity of nomination can also be undertaken by the Court after the election is over in an election petition and result is known to the voters, as in the present case.
9.10.1 This post-election judicial scrutiny about any such irregularity or deficiency in not disclosing necessary information serves as a safeguard against arbitrary actions by the Returning Officer or any injustice caused to a candidate.
9.10.2 Nevertheless, there is a qualitative difference between these two stages in examining the issue of non-disclosure of information. At the time the Returning Officer scrutinizes the nomination papers of the candidates, the voters are yet to express their mind through the ballot box. However, once the election is concluded and the voters have delivered their verdict and the same has been made public, a new dimension is introduced -- that is, the people's mandate, which cannot be overlooked by the court when examining the legality of the acceptance of the nomination.
9.10.3 Election is a hugely expensive and time- consuming process involving not only the candidates in the race but also the vast electorate, who take their valuable time off, to exercise their franchise and choose their representatives. Several State agencies are also involved in ensuring proper and smooth conduct of the elections. A successful election results from the coordinated efforts of various agencies where significant time and national resources are Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARIOM EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 44 of 55 SINGH KIRMOLIYA Signing Date:16.01.2026 17:39:31 invested. Based on the electoral outcome, the process of forming a new government gets activated, and any interference with the election result would have a bearing on the government formation. Hence, any tinkering with the election result has the potential to undermine the voice of the people and their participation in shaping the government.
9.10.4 In a democracy, the will of the people expressed through election is sacrosanct, which in Latin, is conveyed by the maxim, "Vox Populi, Vox Dei," signifying that the voice of the people and collective wisdom should be respected which can even be placed on the highest pedestal of divine authority.
9.10.5 As noted above, participation by voters who are well-informed not only of the affairs of the state but also with knowledge of the candidates' backgrounds invigorates the electoral process, reaffirming that election is one of the fundamental features of democracy. Voters obtain essential information about the candidates through the exercise of the fundamental right to know about them, derived from Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
This right to know the backgrounds of candidates, which corresponds to their obligation to disclose such information, must, however, be balanced with the people's mandate expressed through ballot boxes, which is central to democracy.
9.10.6 Under the circumstances, once the people have spoken their mind by casting their votes through the ballot box and reposed their confidence in the elected candidate, whenever the issue of invalidating the people's mandate is raised before the court, the court must be very careful and circumspect.
A fine balance must be struck between holding free and fair election-- which involves the fundamental right of Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARIOM EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 45 of 55 SINGH KIRMOLIYA Signing Date:16.01.2026 17:39:31 voters to have information about the candidates-- and maintaining the sanctity of the mandate of the voters upon the declaration of the result. After all, election result is the embodiment of the will of the people expressed through the exercise of the constitutional right of the people to vote.
The court, therefore, must keep in mind that declaring an election void solely for non-disclosure of assets, if it lacks substantiality, could undermine the validity of the popular mandate. To nullify the choice of the people on a minor technicality and insignificant non-disclosure of assets by the elected candidate, would have serious repercussions on the democratic process.
Thus, while the court plays a vital role in upholding the rule of law, utmost care must be taken to ensure that election results are not invalidated based on subjective interpretation and minor or technical irregularities that do not substantially impinge on the law, since unwarranted interference with the electoral process and overturning election results can erode public trust in democratic institutions.
9.10.7 Under such circumstances, nullifying the election result and overturning the people's verdict through cold, clinical legal analysis and tools should be avoided, unless the electoral process has been vitiated by gross irregularities that undermine electoral integrity. Courtroom interventions should only happen when there are clear and blatant violations of the law that threaten fairness, legality, and constitutional principles.
9.10.8 Minor procedural errors or purely technical objections of inconsequential nature thus, should not be allowed to override the mandate of the electorate. Courts must be careful not to become tools that undermine the popular mandate in the name of Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARIOM EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 46 of 55 SINGH KIRMOLIYA Signing Date:16.01.2026 17:39:31 technical perfection. The will of the people, expressed through the election result, should be respected, unless it has been corrupted by fraudulent practices, in which case, the court should intervene without hesitation. A judicial victory based on technicalities rather than the electoral victory won in the electoral battlefield should be avoided, unless the mandate and the integrity of the electoral process are compromised by fraud or corrupt practices.
9.11 Statutory provisions and judicial approach in elections law have also been shaped by this cautious approach.
It is for this reason that it has been aptly noted by this Court in Jagan Nath v. Jaswant Singh, (1954) 1 SCC 57 as follows:
"7. The general rule is well settled that the statutory requirements of election law must be strictly observed and that an election contest is not an action at law or a suit in equity but is a purely statutory proceeding unknown to the common law and that the court possesses no common law power. It is also well settled that it is a sound principle of natural justice that the success of a candidate who has won at an election should not be lightly interfered with and any petition seeking such interference must strictly conform to the requirements of the law. None of these propositions however have any application if the special law itself confers authority on a tribunal to proceed with a petition in accordance with certain procedure and when it does not state the consequences of non- compliance with certain procedural requirements laid down by it. It is always to be borne in mind that though the election of a successful candidate is not to be lightly interfered with, one of the essentials of that law is also to safeguard the purity of the election process and also to see that people do not Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARIOM EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 47 of 55 SINGH KIRMOLIYA Signing Date:16.01.2026 17:39:31 get elected by flagrant breaches of that law or by corrupt practices......."
(emphasis added) 9.11.1 This word of caution against overturning electoral verdicts by the courts was pithily put by this Court in Madhukar G.E. Pankakar v. Jaswant Chobbildas Rajani, (1977) 1 SCC 70 in the following words:
"6. It is plain democratic sense that the electoral process should ordinarily receive no judicial jolt except where pollution of purity or contravention of legal mandates invite the court's jurisdiction to review the result and restore legality, legitimacy and respect for norms. The frequency of forensic overturning of poll verdicts injects instability into the electoral system, kindles hopes in worsted candidates and induces post-mortem discoveries of "disqualifications" as a desperate gamble in the system of fluctuating litigative fortunes. This is a caveat against overuse of the court as an antidote for a poll defeat. Of course, where a clear breach is made out, the guns of law shall go into action, and not retreat from the rule of law.
Similar view was expressed by this Court in Santosh Yadav v. Narender Singh, (2002) 1 SCC 160.
9.11.2 For the said reason, strict conditions are set in the statute for challenging the outcome of an election. Unlike other common lawsuits, the Representation of the People Act of 1951 states that no election can be questioned except through an election petition filed according to the provisions of Part VI of the Act. The Act of 1951 itself specifies the procedure to be followed for challenging elections.Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARIOM EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 48 of 55 SINGH KIRMOLIYA Signing Date:16.01.2026 17:39:31
Section 83 of the Act requires that every election petition should include a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies. The petition must be signed and verified in accordance with the procedures established for pleadings in the Code of Civil Procedure. It must be accompanied by an affidavit in Form 25, as required under Rule 94-A of the Rules, verifying the details under two headings :
statements true to the petitioner's own knowledge and statements true based on the petitioner's information.
The election petitioner is also obliged to disclose the source of his information regarding the corrupt practice to link the returned candidate to the charge, to prevent fishing or roving inquiries, as well as to prevent the returned candidate from being caught off guard. The allegations must be interpreted very strictly and narrowly, considering the serious consequences they may entail, such as disqualification from contesting future elections. Thus, the procedure prescribed by the Act for challenging an election must be strictly followed and any deviation or non- compliance can lead to the dismissal of the petition.
In an election petition involving a charge of corrupt practice, the person charged with corrupt practice enjoys the presumption of innocence. The charge must be proved "to the hilt," meaning that the standard of proof is the same as in a criminal trial, i.e., proof beyond reasonable doubt, not merely on preponderance of probabilities.
Such is the nature of an election petition.
These well settled principles have been pithily put by this Court in Jeet Mohinder Singh v. Harminder Singh Jassi, (1999) 9 SCC 386 in the following words:
40. Before we may proceed to deal, in exercise of our appellate jurisdiction, with the pleas raised on Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARIOM EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 49 of 55 SINGH KIRMOLIYA Signing Date:16.01.2026 17:39:31 behalf of the appellant-petitioner canvassing commission of corrupt practices by the respondent which in the opinion of the High Court the election petitioner has failed in proving, we would like to state a few well-settled legal principles in the field of election jurisprudence and relevant to our purpose.
They are:
(i) The success of a candidate who has won at an election should not be lightly interfered with.
Any petition seeking such interference must strictly conform to the requirements of the law. Though the purity of the election process has to be safeguarded and the court shall be vigilant to see that people do not get elected by flagrant breaches of law or by committing corrupt practices, the setting aside of an election involves serious consequences not only for the returned candidate and the constituency, but also for the public at large inasmuch as reelection involves an enormous load on the public funds and administration. (See Jagan Nath v. Jaswant Singh, [(1954) 1 SCC 57 : AIR 1954 SC 210 :
1954 SCR 892], Gajanan Krishnaji Bapat v. Dattaji Raghobaji Meghe, [(1995) 5 SCC 347].)
(ii) Charge of corrupt practice is quasi-criminal in character. If substantiated it leads not only to the setting aside of the election of the successful candidate, but also of his being disqualified to contest an election for a certain period. It may entail extinction of a person's public life and political career. A trial of an election petition though within the realm of civil law is akin to trial on a criminal charge. Two consequences follow. Firstly, the allegations relating to commission of a corrupt practice should be sufficiently clear and stated precisely so as to afford the person charged a full opportunity of meeting the same. Secondly, the charges when Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARIOM EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 50 of 55 SINGH KIRMOLIYA Signing Date:16.01.2026 17:39:31 put to issue should be proved by clear, cogent and credible evidence. To prove charge of corrupt practice a mere preponderance of probabilities would not be enough. There would be a presumption of innocence available to the person charged. The charge shall have to be proved to the hilt, the standard of proof being the same as in a criminal trial. (See Quamarul Islam v. S.K. Kanta, [1994 Supp (3) SCC 5 : AIR 1994 SC 1733], F.A. Sapa v. Singora, [(1991) 3 SCC 375 : AIR 1991 SC 1557], Manohar Joshi v.
Damodar Tatyaba, [(1991) 2 SCC 342] and Ram Singh v. Col. Ram Singh, [1985 Supp SCC 611 :
AIR 1986 SC 3])
(iii) The appellate court attaches great value to the opinion formed by the trial Judge more so when the trial Judge recording findings of fact is the same who had recorded the evidence. The appellate court shall remember that the jurisdiction to try an election petition has been vested in a Judge of the High Court. Secondly, the trial Judge may have had the benefit of watching the demeanour of witnesses and forming first-
hand opinion of them in the process of evaluation of evidence. The Supreme Court may reassess the evidence and come to its own conclusions on feeling satisfied that in recording findings of fact the High Court has disregarded settled principles governing the approach to evidence or committed grave or palpable errors. (See Gajanan Krishnaji Bapat v. Dattaji Raghobaji Meghe, [(1995) 5 SCC 347] and Kripa Shankar Chatterji v. Gurudas Chatterjee, [(1995) 5 SCC 1].)
(iv) Section 83 of the Act requires every election petition to contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the appellant relies. If the election petition alleges commission of corrupt practice at the election, the election petition shall Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARIOM EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 51 of 55 SINGH KIRMOLIYA Signing Date:16.01.2026 17:39:31 set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice including as full a statement as possible of the names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practice and the date and place of the commission of each such practice. Every election petition must be signed and verified by the appellant in the manner laid down for the verification of pleadings in CPC. An election petition alleging corrupt practice is required to be accompanied by an affidavit in Form 25 read with Rule 94-A of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961. Form 25 contemplates the various particulars as to the corrupt practices mentioned in the election petition being verified by the appellant separately under two headings : (i) which of such statements including particulars are true to the appellant's own knowledge, and (ii) which of the statements including the particulars are true to information of the appellant. It has been held in Gajanan Krishnaji Bapat case, [(1995) 5 SCC 347] that the election petitioner is also obliged to disclose his source of information in respect of the commission of the corrupt practice so as to bind him to the charge levelled by him and to prevent any fishing or roving enquiry, also to prevent the returned candidate from being taken by surprise."
xxx
11. CONCLUSION 11.1 Judicial intervention in election disputes concerning disclosure of information, as discussed above, was prompted by the quest for sanitising the electoral process by eliminating polluting elements by making candidates' criminal antecedents public. Aiming to prevent criminals from participating in elections to maintain purity of the electoral process
-- essential for the proper functioning of Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARIOM EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 52 of 55 SINGH KIRMOLIYA Signing Date:16.01.2026 17:39:31 parliamentary democracy -- the court was compelled to exercise its extraordinary power to issue specific directions. Consequently, not only disclosure of criminal antecedents, but also related obligations to disclose assets, liabilities, and educational qualifications of election candidates became mandatory. The knowledge of the criminal antecedents, assets and educational qualifications of the candidates by voters certainly invigorates the electoral process, which is ensured by obligatory disclosure by the candidate. However, the Court has made a subtle distinction between non-disclosure of criminal antecedents and that of assets and educational qualifications. While disclosure of criminal antecedents in the electoral process was the most critical element to maintain the purity of the electoral process which has to be scrupulously adhered to, disclosure of assets and educational qualifications were considered as attending supplementary requirements to strengthen the electoral process, of which there will be certain scope for consideration as to whether it is of substantial or inconsequential nature.
In the light of the above, this disclosure requirement as far as assets and educational qualification is concerned, should not be unreasonably stretched to invalidate an otherwise validly declared election over minor technical non compliances that are not of substantial character, and should not be the basis for nullification of the people's mandate.
11.2 In the light of the legal position exposited, on examination of the facts in the peculiar background obtaining in the case, we hold that the non-disclosure of income in the income tax return for four financial years by Respondent No. 1, is not a defect of substantial character. Therefore, the nomination could not have been rejected under Section 36(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 as contended Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARIOM EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 53 of 55 SINGH KIRMOLIYA Signing Date:16.01.2026 17:39:31 by the Appellant and hence, no illegality was committed by the Returning Officer in accepting the nomination of the Respondent No. 1. Resultantly, the penal clause cannot be invoked to invalidate Respondent No. 1's election under Section 100(1)(d)(i) of the Act on the ground that the nomination of Respondent No. 1 was improperly accepted.
11.3 As we have held that the defect of non-disclosure mentioned is not of a substantial nature, for the same reason the Respondent No. 1 cannot be considered to have indulged in a corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123 (2) of the Act, and thus, the election of Respondent No. 1 cannot be rendered void under Section 100(1)(b) of the Act.
11.4 Consequently, on the same consideration, it cannot be also said that the Respondent No. 1 did not comply with the relevant provisions of the Act or any rule or order made under the Act, to attract the provisions of Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act."
(emphasis supplied)
22. In order to attract Section 123(4) of the RP Act is that there has to be publication by a candidate or his agent or by any other person in relation to another candidate with the consent of a candidate or his election agent of any statement of fact which is false and which he either believes to be false or does not believe to be true in relation to the personal character or conduct of any candidate or in relation to the candidature or withdrawal of any candidate being a statement reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of that candidate‟s election. The information given in Form 26, filed along with the nomination paper, does not come within any of the provisions of Section 123 of the RP Act - which is very specific. Corrupt practice is defined in Section 123 of the RP Act. Corrupt practice does not include Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARIOM EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 54 of 55 SINGH KIRMOLIYA Signing Date:16.01.2026 17:39:31 furnishing of false information in Form 26 along with the nomination paper. As stated in a catena of judgments, charge of corrupt practice is quasi- criminal in character and if substantiated, it leads not only to the setting aside of the election of the successful candidate but also disqualifies the candidate from contesting an election for a certain period. Unless the allegation does not come directly within the four corners of Section 123 of the RP Act, an election petition alleging corrupt practice under Section 123 of the RP Act cannot be entertained at all. It is again well settled that pleadings in election petition has to be specific and precise. Loose pleadings have no place in election law. This Court is of the opinion that the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court is based on purposive interpretation of corrupt practice and to set aside the election would go against the fundamentals and foundations of election jurisprudence.
23. In the absence of any amendment to Section 123 of the RP Act regarding the Affidavit which has now been sought to be furnished in pursuance to the amendments to the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, Section 123 of the RP Act, on the face of it, cannot be attracted. However, instead of holding the Judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court to be per incuriam, more particularly, after the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Ajmera Shyam (supra), this Court is inclined to request Hon‟ble the Chief Justice to constitute a Larger Bench for authoritative pronouncement on this aspect.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J JANUARY 13, 2026 hsk/jr Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARIOM EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 55 of 55 SINGH KIRMOLIYA Signing Date:16.01.2026 17:39:31