SC Reserves Order On Fadnavis's Review Against Verdict Setting Aside Clean Chit In False Election Affidavit Case

The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved orders on the review petition filed by former Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis against the October judgment of the SC that had set aside the clean chit given to him by Bombay High Court in a case alleging filing of false election affidavit.

A three judge bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra, Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose heard the arguments of Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi for Fadnavis.

It was submitted by Rohatgi that as per Section 33A(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, there was no requirement to furnish information regarding a criminal case unless charge has been framed by the trial court.

The senior counsel added that mere taking of cognizance by the Court was not a reason to reveal the criminal case.

"What if cognisance was taken in an offence yesterday and I file my poll affidavit tomorrow?", he asked.

Though Rohatgi pressed for a stay of the main judgment, the bench refused.

On January 23, the bench had allowed Fadnavis's application for allowing oral hearing of review petition in open court.

On October 1, 2019, a bench headed by the then CJI Ranjan Gogoi had set aside the clean chit given to Fadnavis by the Bombay High Court in a case alleging furnishing false information in the election affidavit submitted during 2014 assembly polls.

The bench of CJI Ranjan Gogoi, Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose had observed that prima facie case under Section 125 of the Representation of Peoples Act was made out against Fadnavis, and directed the trial court to proceed with the case.

The Court was dealing with the petition filed by lawyer Satish Ukey seeking prosecution of Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis under the provisions of the Representation of the People (RP) Act for allegedly failing to furnish details of two pending criminal cases, in which the trial court had taken cognizance, in his election affidavit.

Ukey had contended that the chief minister filed a false affidavit by not disclosing the two criminal matters and yet the trial court and the high court held that there no prima facie case was made out for prosecution of the chief minister.

He had said that a candidate was under mandatory legal obligation to disclose the details of all the cases, in which either charges have been framed or the trial court had taken cognizance, in the nomination papers.

The petitioner had alleged that Fadnavis, in his election affidavit filed in 2014, had failed to disclose the pendency of two criminal cases against him. It was contended that the chief minister did not disclose the information as required of him under the election law and the non-disclosure of these two pending criminal cases was in violation of Section 125A of the RP Act and constituted an offence in itself.