False Declaration About Candidate's Educational Qualification Can Be Brought Under Sec 123(4) Representation Of People Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that a false declaration made by a candidate qua educational qualification can be brought within the four corners of sec. 123(4) of Representation of People Act, 1951.

Sec 123(4) of the Act states "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."

"The expression "in relation to candidature" should, in my view, include information concerning the educational qualification of a candidate, since the Supreme Court has unambiguously held that voters have the fundamental right to know the antecedents of the candidate. A false declaration made, qua educational qualification can be brought within the four corners of Section 123(4) of the 1951 Act," Justice Rajiv Shakdher observed.

The Court was adjudicating on an aspect concerning that educational qualification do not fall within the ambit of sec. 123(4) of the 1951 Act, which provides as to what practices are deemed as corrupt practices for the purposes of the Act.

The observation was made while dealing with an application filed by Vishesh Ravi, an MLA belonging to the Aam Aadmi Party, one of the respondents in an election petition filed by Yogender Chandolia belonging to the Bhartiya Janta Party.

The application was filed on the ground that the election petition read as a whole along with the documents filed, did not disclose a cause of action, and hence, ought to be rejected.

The petitioner had raised to allegations against the applicant regarding his election from Karol Bagh constituency held on 08.02.2020. 

The first allegation was that the Ravi had disclosed in his affidavit filed in Form-26 along with his nomination, that his educational qualification was 10th passed which according to Chandolia was false. Secondly, it was alleged that there was no disclosure concerning the pendency of the First Information Report registered against him in Form-26.

The question before the Court was thus whether the election petition ought to be rejected without the matter going to trial.

On the aspect of whether there was an obligation on Ravi's part to disclose information about his educational qualifications and the fact concerning his involvement in a criminal case, the Court was of the view that he candidate who files his nomination is required to disclose his educational qualifications as also his past convictions including fines imposed, imprisonments suffered, acquittals or discharge.

"Disclosure qua the aforesaid is in addition to the disclosure of information qua pending criminal case where a person if convicted, can be sentenced to imprisonment for two years or more, albeit, where charge is framed or cognizance is taken by Court of law, and information concerning the candidate's assets including those of the spouse and dependents as also liabilities, particularly, those related to the Government or public institutes," the Court said.

The Court also added that if prior to six months of filing nomination, if a candidate is accused of an offence punishable with imprisonment of two years or more, in which charge is framed or cognizance is taken by a Court of law, the same needs to be disclosed.

On the aspect of educational qualifications, the Court said:

"Given the material on record, I am unable to persuade myself that merely because the May 2002 Academic Examination Result for Class X, concerning the applicant/respondent no.1, does not align with the assertion made in the petition that the application/respondent no.1 did not pass the examination of Class X in 2003 would not be a good enough reason to reject the petition. The averments made in this behalf have to be read in their entirety, and, therefore, the matter, in my view, needs to be tried."

Accordingly, the Court granted leave to the petitioner to file a fresh affidavit in Form-252, within fifteen days.

"While doing so, the petitioner will bear in mind the requirements captured in Form-25, vis-a-vis verification of the particulars of the corrupt practice required to be provided in the affidavit. The petitioner will state clearly in the affidavit, the parts which are true to his knowledge and those which are based on information," the Court said.

Dismissing the said application, the Court said that it was not inclined to reject the election petition at the present stage.

The matter is now listed for framing of issues on 25.02.2022.

Appearances: Advocate Abhijat appeared for the petitioner whereas Advocates Anupam Srivastava, Sarita Pandey and Dhairya Gupta appeared for the respondents. Advocate Sidhant Kumar was the amicus curiae in the matter.

Title: YOGENDER CHANDOLIA v. VISHESH RAVI & ORS.

Click Here To Read Order