Breaking: Candidates Must Also Disclose Criminal Cases In Which Cognizance Has Been Taken By Court: SC [Read Judgment]

The Supreme Court has observed that a contesting candidate must mandatorily disclose not only case(s) in which charges have been framed but also case(s) in which cognizance has been taken by the Competent Court.

The bench of CJI Ranjan Gogoi, Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose held thus while setting aside the clean chit given to Maharashtra CM Devendra Fadnavis by the Bombay High Court in a case alleging furnishing false information in the election affidavit submitted during 2014 assembly polls.

The issue in this case [Satish Ukey vs. Devendra Gangadharrao Fadnavis] was whether the word 'information' as mentioned in Section 33-A of the Representation of the People Act means only such information as mentioned in clause (i) and (ii) of Section 33-A(1) or whether along with the said information a candidate is also required to furnish such other information as required under the Act or the Rules made thereunder. The consequential question that would arise is whether in the affidavit required to be filed under sub-section (2) of Section 33-A information is to be given as required in terms of the affidavit which is prescribed by Form-26 of the 1961 Rules or such information is confined to what is required to be submitted under Section 33-A (1) (i) and (ii).

Referring to Form 26, the bench observed:

A bare perusal of Form-26 makes it abundantly clear that, for offences punishable with imprisonment for two years or more, while entry (5) (i) mandates disclosure of information by the contesting candidate regarding the case(s) that is/are pending against him in which charges have been framed by the Court; entry (5)(ii) mandates disclosure of information by the contesting candidate regarding cases that are pending against him in which cognizance has been taken by the Court. Entry 5(ii) specifically mentions that the candidate is required to provide information of the case(s) pending in which cognizance has been taken. This is in addition to the information he is required to provide against the column in Entry 5(i) as the words 'Other than the cases mentioned in item (i) above' are specifically used in Entry 5 (ii).

The above can leave no element of doubt that, subsequent to the substitution of Form 26 in 2012, the new Form 26 (as in vogue at the time of the elections in 2014), mandates the disclosure of information by the contesting candidate of not only case(s) in which charges have been framed but also case(s) in which cognizance has been taken by the Court. 

Referring also to the letters written by the Election Commission of India to the Chief Electoral Officer of all the States and the Union Territories, the bench observed that a contesting candidate is mandated to furnish information concerning the cases in which a Competent Court has taken cognizance along with the cases in which charges have been framed. This is apart from and in addition to cases in which charges have been framed for an offence punishable with imprisonment for two years or more or cases in which conviction has been recorded and sentence of imprisonment for a period of one year or more has been imposed (Entries 5(i) and 6 of Form 26 respectively), the bench added. It observed:

A cumulative reading of Section 33-A of the 1951 Act and Rule 4-A of the 1961 Rules and Form-26 along with the letters dated 24.8.2012, 26.9.2012 and 26.4.2014, in our considered view, make it amply clear that the information to be furnished under Section 33-A of the 1951 Act includes not only information mentioned in clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 33-A(1), but also information, that the candidate is required to furnish, under the Act or the Rules made thereunder and such information should be furnished in Form 26, which includes information concerning cases in which a competent Court has taken cognizance (Entry 5(ii) of Form 26)

Taking into account the fact that Fadnavis had knowledge of the two cases against him which had not been mentioned in the affidavit filed by him along with his nomination papers, the bench observed that prima facie case under Section 125 of the Representation of Peoples Act was made out against him, and therefore directed the trial court to proceed with the case.

Click here to Read/Download Judgment