False Declaration With Regard To Assets Of A Candidate, His/Her Spouse/Dependents, Constitutes Corrupt Practice: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that a false declaration with regard to the assets of a candidate, his/her spouse or dependents, constitutes corrupt practice irrespective of the impact of such a false declaration on the election of the candidate. 

The bench of CJI Uday Umesh Lalit, Justices Indira Banerjee and Ajay Rastogi also upheld the power of State Election Commissions to issue directions requiring disclosure of assets of the candidate, his/her spouse and dependent associates by way of affidavit.

In this case, the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, allowed an Election Petition setting aside the election of the S. Rukmini Madegowda to the Mysore Municipal Corporation as a Ward Councillor on the grounds that she had not given the correct name of her husband and had suppressed the fact that her husband had owned properties. The Karnataka High Court upheld this order.

In appeal before the Apex Court, the following legal issues were raised by the appellant- (i) Whether a duly elected candidate, serving as the Mayor, Mysore City Corporation after election, could be unseated, in the absence of any statutory provision requiring disclosure of assets in the affidavit filed with the nomination form? (ii) Whether non-disclosure of assets would constitute corrupt practice, in the absence of any statutory provision requiring disclosure of assets? The election in the instant case was governed by the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 and the Karnataka Municipal Corporation (Election) Rules, 1979. It was contended that there was no requirement of any disclosure under the KMC Act or under the KMC Election Rules.

Interpreting the provisions of the KMC Act and Rules, the court observed that non-disclosure of assets would amount to 'undue influence' and consequently to 'corrupt practices' under the KMC Act. The court also held that there was no legal or normative impediment for the State Election Commission to issue directions requiring disclosure of assets of the candidate, his/her spouse and dependent associates by way of affidavit.

The bench noiticed that the appellant admittedly has made incorrect statements and that (i) she falsely stated that her husband's name was 'Nanjegowda' instead of stating his real name 'Madegowda', (ii) she has stated that her husband did not own any movable or immovable properties although he owned large number of movable properties. Therefore, while dismissing the appeal, the bench observed:

"Purity of election at all levels, be it election to the Union Parliament or a State Legislature or a Municipal Corporation or a Panchayat is a matter of national importance in which a uniform policy is desirable in the interest of all the States. A hypertechnical view of the omission to incorporate any specific provision in the KMC Election Rules, similar to the 1961 Rules, expressly requiring disclosure of assets, to condone dishonesty and corrupt practice would be against the spirit of the Constitution and public interest."

Case details

S Rukmini Madegowda vs State Election Commission | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 766 | SLP(C) 7414 OF 2021 | 14 September 2022 | CJI Uday Umesh Lalit, Justices Indira Banerjee and Ajay Rastogi

Counsel: Sr. Adv Shyam Diwan for appellant, Sr. Adv Basava Prabhu S. Patil for respondent

Headnotes

Election - A false declaration with regard to the assets of a candidate, his/her spouse or dependents, constitutes corrupt practice irrespective of the impact of such a false declaration on the election of the candidate. It may be presumed that a false declaration impacts the election. (Para 38)

Constitution of India, 1950 ; Article 324(1), 243-K and 243-ZA(1) - The Election Commission has wide powers under Article 324(1)  to issue directions necessary for conducting free and fair elections, subject to the contours of law. The power of the Election Commission includes the power to issue directions where the law is silent. The State Election Commission has the same powers under Article 243-K and 243-ZA(1) as the Election Commission of India has under Article 324(1). (Para 68)

Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 ; Section 39 - The non-disclosure of assets would therefore, also amount to 'undue influence' and consequently to 'corrupt practices' under the KMC Act. (Para 62)

Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 - Karnataka Municipal Corporation (Election) Rules, 1979 -  No legal or normative impediment for the State Election Commission to issue directions requiring disclosure of assets of the candidate, his/her spouse and dependent associates by way of affidavit - Purity of election at all levels, be it election to the Union Parliament or a State Legislature or a Municipal Corporation or a Panchayat is a matter of national importance in which a uniform policy is desirable in the interest of all the States. A hypertechnical view of the omission to incorporate any specific provision in the KMC Election Rules, similar to the 1961 Rules, expressly requiring disclosure of assets, to condone dishonesty and corrupt practice would be against the spirit of the Constitution and public interest. (Para 70-74)

Precedent - A judgment is a precedent for the issue of law that is raised and decided. The judgment has to be construed in the backdrop of the facts and circumstances in which the judgment has been rendered. Words, phrases and sentences in a judgment, cannot be read out of context. Nor is a judgment to be read and interpreted in the manner of a statute. It is only the law as interpreted by Court in an earlier judgment, which constitutes a binding precedent, and not everything that the Judges say. (Para 41)

Click here to Read/Download Judgment