Furnishing False Information About Educational Qualification Not 'Corrupt Practice' U/S 123 Of RP Act: Allahabad High Court

The bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh further observed that the information regarding the educational qualifications of a candidate is not a vital and useful piece of information to the voter and thus, it cannot be said that any inconsistency or error in the affidavit of a candidate regarding candidate's educational qualification would amount to corrupt practice.

The Court also held that concealment of electricity dues or housing loans by a candidate would also not be termed as a corrupt practice within the meaning of section 123 of the R.P. Act.

The case in brief

In the month of February 2017, UP State elections were wherein the petitioner (Anugrah Narayan Singh/Indian National Congress) as well as the respondent (Harsh Vardhan Bajpayee/BJP) contested election from the 262 Allahabad City North constituency and the respondent was declared elected.

Challenging his elections, the petitioner filed the instant election petition under section 80/81 of the Representation of the People Act on the ground that he concealed the facts about the pending electricity dues and other liabilities and he also furnished false information regarding his educational qualifications and thus, the same amount to corrupt practice.

During the pendency of the election petition, the Legislative Assembly came to be dissolved in the month of February/ March 2022 after the term of five years was over, in view of this, the respondent filed an application seeking a direction that the election petition may be dismissed as infructuous.

However, the counsel for the petitioner argued that since the respondent had committed corrupt practice within the meaning of sections 123(2) and 123(4) of the RP Act and thus, the election petition must be proceeded further, as the respondent may entail several disqualifications including a bar for contesting an election for a period of six years.

Court's observations

Taking into account several landmark rulings of the Supreme Court, the High Court observed that when the term of the disputed election has expired and thereafter, fresh election has taken place and if the allegations made by the petitioner do not amount to any corrupt practice, then such an election petition could be dismissed.

In the instant case, the Court noted that the charges against the respondent (BJP candidate) was that he had failed to disclose his liabilities as well as a correct educational qualification in his affidavit of nomination, and thus, he had interfered in the free exercise of the electoral rights of the electors.

However, the Court observed that merely because the said electrical connection is installed in the property owned by the respondent, it would not be sufficient to show that the respondent has concealed the alleged liability.

The Court also noted that no such document was shown by the petitioner to show that a recovery certificate was issued against the respondent.

"In the present case, there is no documentary evidence that the said electricity connection was in the name of the respondent or that the alleged recovery certificate was issued against the applicant. There is no such finding [in the apex Court's decision in Kisan Shankar Kathore v. Arun Dattatray Sawant And Ors., SCC 14 (2014) 162] that concealment of electricity dues would amount to corrupt practice contemplated under section 123 of the R.P. Act. Even on the premises of the said case law the allegation regarding nondisclosure of electricity dues and loan amount would not amount to corrupt practice," the Court further remarked.

Regarding the contention of the petitioner that false information was furnished by the respondent regarding his educational qualification, the Court took into account the Apex Court's rulings in the cases of Peoples Union for Civil Liberties V UOI AIR 2003 SC 2363 as well as Kuldeep Nayar And Ors. v. Union of India And Ors., 2006(7) SCC 1, and observed thus:

"…the anomalies regarding educational qualification shown in the affidavit of the respondent or to say even false information regarding the education of the respondent, can hardly be termed as 'corrupt practice' within the meaning of sub section (2) or (4) of section 123 R.P. Act. Further, for the sake of argument even if it is assumed that the respondent does not hold the degree of MBA, which was shown by him in his affidavit filed in the nomination of election to the said constituency in the year 2012, it cannot be a ground hold that it would constitute a corrupt practice in respect of next election in the year 2017."

Against this backdrop, noting that since the allegations of the corrupt practices were not proved thus, the election petition was liable to be dismissed as having been rendered infructuous, the Court dismissed the plea.

Case title - Anugrah Narayan Singh v. Harsh Vardhan Bajpayee [ELECTION PETITION No. - 10 of 2017]

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 459

Click Here To Read/Download Order