Minor Differences In Nomination Form Or Non-Disclosure Of Dues Not Substantial Defect To Materially Affect Election Result: Madhya Pradesh High Court
While dismissing two pleas challenging the election of Congress MLA Ajay Arjun Singh from Chaurhat constituency, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that mere minor differences in nomination form or non disclosure of dues cannot be termed a "substantial defect" affecting the election result. A single judge bench of Justice Vishal Mishra observed that the election petitions alleged...
While dismissing two pleas challenging the election of Congress MLA Ajay Arjun Singh from Chaurhat constituency, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that mere minor differences in nomination form or non disclosure of dues cannot be termed a "substantial defect" affecting the election result.
A single judge bench of Justice Vishal Mishra observed that the election petitions alleged non-compliance of the provisions of the Representation of People Act, 1951. Justice Mishra said that though attempt was made to point out that there are certain violations which amount to disqualification of the nomination form, however the "allegation should be specific, it should not be vague".
The court said that the election petitioner has to "specifically point out that nondisclosure in toto will materially affect the result of the elections as far as the returned candidate is concerned". The election petitioner has to specifically show that how the violations pointed out in the election petition "materially affect the result of the election", the court added,
It thereafter underscored,
“Mere minor differences in the nomination form or non-disclosure of some information regarding dues, as in the present case cannot be said to be a substantial defect so as to materially affect the result of the election.”
The petitions, alleged non-compliance with mandatory provisions during the submission of Respondent's nomination papers. Meanwhile the respondent–Ajay Arjun Singh moved applications seeking rejection of election petitions.
The High Court further said,"For an election to be declared void under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act of 1951, it is essential for the petitioner to prove that non-compliance with statutory provisions materially affected the election result. The mere presence of minor discrepancies or omissions does not constitute grounds for invalidating an election unless it is shown that such breaches had a significant impact on the outcome."
Contentions
The petitioners contended that had failed to comply with Rule 4A of the Conduct of Election Rules by not providing a complete affidavit in Form 26 with his nomination paper. Petitioners argued that the respondent's nomination form had several blank columns, failed to provide complete information about criminal convictions, and did not comply with the mandatory disclosure requirements under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The petitioners claimed that these omissions amounted to 'corrupt practices' under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act of 1951 and further stated that such non-compliance affected the election's outcome.
Singh argued that all required particulars were duly submitted with the nomination papers and that the deficiencies mentioned were not substantial enough to affect the election results. His counsel cited several judgments, including Supreme Court's decision in Karikho Kri v. Nuney Tayang and Dasangula Pul v. Lupalum Kri (2024), asserting that furnishing detailed particulars through annexures was sufficient compliance with the mandatory provisions. It was emphasized that Section 83 of the Representation Of Peoples Act requires election petitions to provide a concise statement of material facts, including detailed allegations of corrupt practices, which they argued was not met by the petitioners.
Meanwhile the counsel for the petitioners alleged that Singh's nomination form and affidavit were incomplete and misleading. It was contended that the respondent was required to furnish information with respect to his criminal cases wherein under the heading of 'Total number of cases in which convicted' he has mentioned 'Nil'.The petitioners argued that these violations amounted to substantial defects asserting that these defects could materially affect the election outcome.
The high court however referred to Supreme Court's decisions including in Karikho Kri, which had held that "mere non-compliance or breach of statutory provisions does not invalidate an election unless it is shown that such breach materially affected the result."
The High Court thereafter held that the petitioners had failed to make out a cause of action and had not shown how the result of the returned candidate can be affected by minor deficiencies. The court went on to dismiss the election petitions and allowed the applications moved by the respondent.
Case title: Ramgareb & Others v/s Ajay Arjun Singh and Rakesh Kumar Pandey v/s Ajay Arjun Singh
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 198
Case No: E.P. No.6 of 2024 and E.P. No.7 of 2024