Every Non-Disclosure By Candidate Won't Make Nomination Invalid Unless It Is Substantial Affecting Election Outcome : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that every defect in a nomination filed by a candidate contesting elections will not make the nomination invalid. Only defects of a substantial nature, which can impact the outcome of election, will render the nomination invalid. Every non-disclosure, irrespective of its gravity and impact, would not automatically amount to a defect of substantial nature,

“We are of the firm view that every defect in the nomination cannot straightaway be termed to be of such character as to render its acceptance improper and each case would have to turn on its own individual facts, insofar as that aspect is concerned.”, the Bench Comprising Justices Anirudhha Bose and Sanjay Kumar said.

The court has distinguished non-disclosure of substantial information as opposed to insubstantial information by the candidate in the nomination.

The Court clarified that the substantial information that can materially affect the result of the election amounting to the exercise of 'undue influence' over the electorate, needs to be declared by the candidate while filing the nomination.

“The very fact that Section 36(4) of the Representation of Peoples Act of 1951 speaks of the Returning Officer not rejecting a nomination unless he is of the opinion that the defect is of a substantial nature demonstrates that this distinction must always be kept in mind and there is no absolute mandate that every non-disclosure, irrespective of its gravity and impact, would automatically amount to a defect of substantial nature, thereby materially affecting the result of the election or amounting to 'undue influence' so as to qualify as a corrupt practice" the court added.

The aforesaid observation of the Supreme Court came while deciding the plea of the Karikho Kri whose election to Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly was declared null and void by the Gauhati High Court.

Non-disclosure of Insubstantial Information In Nomination Such as Electricity, Rent, Water, and Telephone Charges Cannot Be Held Against the Candidate

It was contended by the respondent/unsuccessful candidate that Kri/appellant provided inaccurate information in his election nomination papers and failed to disclose in Form 26 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, that he occupied a government-allotted MLA cottage in Itanagar. Additionally, it was asserted that Mr. Kri did not furnish "no dues certificates" from relevant departments regarding payments for rent, electricity, water, and telephone charges.

Rejecting such contention, the court held that information such as 'no dues certificates' and payments for rent, electricity, water, and telephone charges do not constitute information of a substantial nature that could materially affect the election result or amounts to exercising of 'undue-influence' over the voters to qualify as a corrupt practice.

“The most important aspect to be noted is that there were no actual dues and the failure of Karikho Kri to disclose that he had been in occupation of government accommodation during the years 2009 to 2014 cannot be treated as a defect that is of substantial character so as to taint his nomination and render its acceptance improper.”, the court observed.

While referring to its Judgment of Kisan Shankar Kathore vs. Arun Dattatray Sawant and others and Sambhu Prasad Sharma vs. Charandas Mahant, the court opined that every non-disclosure such as outstanding bills of electricity, water, telephone, etc. shouldn't come in the way of the candidate's nomination acceptance as these non-disclosure are insubstantial in character which do not materially affect the election result or amounts to 'undue influence' to qualify as a corrupt practice.

“the form of the nomination paper is not considered sacrosanct and what is to be seen is whether there is substantial compliance with the requirement as to form and every departure from the prescribed format cannot, therefore, be made a ground for the rejection of the nomination paper.”, the court observed in Sambhu Prasad Sharma.

Also from the judgment- Candidates Need Not Disclose Every Moveable Property Owned By Them; Voters' Right To Know Not Absolute: Supreme Court

Case Title: KARIKHO KRI vs. NUNEY TAYANG, C.A. No. 004615 / 2023

Click here to read the judgment