Non-Disclosure Of Criminal Cases By Election Candidate Amounts To Corrupt Practice Under Representation Of Peoples Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that non-disclosure of criminal cases lodged against an election candidate amounts to 'corrupt practice' under the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951.

Justice D.V.S.S. Somayajulu was hearing a case against Srinivasulu Reddy, former MLC from the Prakasam-Nellore-Chittoor Graduates’ Constituency representing the Progressive Democratic Front.

It held that the non-disclosure of criminal antecedents amounts to corrupt practice and such acceptance of the nomination of the Respondent is improper/bad in law and thus the elections has to be declared as void. The Bench observed that even though the tenure has expired, in view of the overarching need for transparency and purity, a declaration has to be given on corrupt practice.

The term of the Respondent expired in February, 2023. It was argued that by virtue of expiry of 6 year term of the Respondent, no relief can be granted in election petition and thus election petition has to become infructuous. However, the Court observed that as the term expires the prayer cannot be granted but it observed that there is an issue of suppression of criminal antecedents.

Thus, the pertinent question involved is whether the failure to disclose the fact that a criminal case is registered against respondent No.1 in the nomination is a corrupt practice or not and its effect on the election.

E.V.V.S.Ravi Kumar counsel representing the Petitioner, filed an exhibit order passed by a Magistrate Court where the Respondent was prosecuted under Sections 143,147,148, 447, 290, 342, 332 r/w 149 IPC and convicted vide Order dated 12.01.2018. The Petitioner pleaded that the Respondent failed to disclose the criminal antecedents under Section 100(1)(d)(i) of the RP Act.

P. Veera Reddy senior counsel argued that the failure to disclose the information is not wanton but due to ill-advise. Moreover, it was submitted that he was acquitted in appeal.

The Court observed that Respondent is a qualified, experienced and educated contestant and cannot plead ignorance. "His evidence is to the effect that he is aware of the procedures involved in the election including the nomination procedures,” it said.

The court relied on various judgments of the Supreme Court where a failure to disclose the assets was held to be a material irregularity and failure to disclose the proper educational qualification was also commented upon. In both these cases, elections were set aside. The Court added,

“In this case, a highly literate, experienced candidate in an election of a graduate’s constituency has chosen not to disclose the details of the criminal case pending against him. The only explanation given is that he was under the impression that only details of convictions alone should be given. In the opinion of this Court, the columns specified in form 24 are very clear: details of the criminal cases pending are to be disclosed in column No.5 and details pertaining to convictions are to be described in column No.6.”

Hence the Court came to a conclusion that the Respondent committed corrupt practice and has to make reference to the Secretary of the Legislative Council of the State, for placing the issue before the President of India to decide on the disqualification that is to be awarded to the Respondent in terms of section 8-A of the 1951 Act. It als held the Respondent is also liable for prosecution under section 125A of the RP Act.

“The little man walking into the little booth needs to know. Purity of the election process will only be ensured if the little man‖ knows his candidate fully. Purity of the system can only be ensured by a full and frank disclosure. It cannot wait. It must not wait. ‘Satyameva Jayathe’ should not remain an empty slogan. A free and fair election is a basic feature of our democracy which in turn is a basic structure of our constitution. It cannot be allowed to be polluted in any way. A fully educated literate candidate like respondent No.1 cannot be allowed to flout the law with impunity. If such actions are pardoned, the painstaking effort put in by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India to bring purity/probity into elections will be set at naught,” said the Court.

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment