Supreme Court Upholds Disqualification for False Asset Declaration in Municipal Elections: S. Rukmini Madegowda vs. State Election Commission (2022)

Date of the Judgment: 14 September 2022

Citation: (2022) INSC 778

Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI, Indira Banerjee, J., Ajay Rastogi, J.

Can a candidate be disqualified for not disclosing their spouse’s assets in an election affidavit, even if the election law doesn’t explicitly require it? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case concerning municipal elections in Karnataka. The court examined whether a false declaration of assets constitutes a “corrupt practice,” which can lead to disqualification. The bench, comprising Chief Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice Indira Banerjee, and Justice Ajay Rastogi, unanimously dismissed the appeal, upholding the disqualification of the appellant.

Case Background

In 2018, S. Rukmini Madegowda (the Appellant) contested the Mysore Municipal Corporation elections from Ward No. 36-Yeraganahalli, a constituency reserved for Backward Class-B (Women). She submitted an affidavit declaring her assets, as well as those of her spouse and dependents. The election took place in August 2018, and on September 3, 2018, the results were announced, with the Appellant winning the seat.

An unsuccessful candidate, Respondent No. 4, filed an election petition alleging that the Appellant had falsely declared that her husband did not possess any immovable property. The Respondent No. 4 contended that this false declaration was a corrupt practice aimed at benefiting from the reservation for Backward Class-B (Women).

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, initially rejected the Election Petition on April 16, 2019. However, the High Court of Karnataka remanded the case back to the Trial Court on April 28, 2020, for reconsideration, citing judgments of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms and Lok Prahari v. Union of India. The High Court noted that the Trial Court should have considered the matter with reference to the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (KMC Act) and the aforementioned Supreme Court decisions.

Following the remand, the Trial Court allowed the Election Petition on December 14, 2020, setting aside the Appellant’s election. The Appellant then appealed to the High Court, which dismissed the appeal on May 26, 2021, upholding the Trial Court’s decision. This led to the Appellant’s appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case is governed by the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (KMC Act) and the Karnataka Municipal Corporation (Election) Rules, 1979. The KMC Act outlines the grounds for challenging an election, including corrupt practices. Section 39 of the KMC Act defines corrupt practices by incorporating the definition of “undue influence” from Section 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (1951 RP Act). Section 27 of the KMC Act specifies that engaging in corrupt practices entails disqualification for six years.

Section 35 of the KMC Act specifies the grounds for declaring an election void, which includes if the court finds that a candidate has committed a corrupt practice. Section 39 of the KMC Act defines corrupt practices by incorporating the definition of “undue influence” from Section 123(2) of the 1951 RP Act. Section 123(2) of the 1951 RP Act defines “undue influence” as any direct or indirect interference with the free exercise of any electoral right.

The Supreme Court also referred to Article 324 of the Constitution of India, which provides the Election Commission with the power to ensure free and fair elections, and Article 243ZA(1), which vests similar powers in the State Election Commission for municipal elections. The Court also considered the notifications issued by the Karnataka State Election Commission on July 14, 2003, and June 19, 2018, which required candidates to disclose their assets, as well as those of their spouses and dependents.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• Mr. Shyam Diwan, representing the Appellant, argued that the KMC Act and KMC Election Rules do not mandate the disclosure of a spouse’s assets.
• He contended that election law is a self-contained code and cannot be expanded by policy decisions or common law principles. He cited Shrikant v. Vasantrao and Others and Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal to support this.
• Mr. Diwan argued that the Election Commission’s notification requiring disclosure of assets was beyond its authority, as there was no vacuum in the KMC Act requiring such a notification.
• He submitted that the High Court erred in finding the Appellant guilty of corrupt practices, as the non-disclosure, at best, could amount to improper acceptance of nomination under Section 35(1)(d)(i) of the KMC Act.
• Mr. Diwan argued that penal measures can only be imposed in accordance with statutory provisions and/or rules. He cited State of M. P . v. Centre for Environment Protection Research & Development to support this.
• He argued that the impugned judgment and order was incorrect, citing Tolaram Relumal and Another v. State of Bombay and Bipinchandra Parshottamdas Patel v. State of Gujarat to argue for strict construction of penal statutes.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, representing Respondent No. 4, argued that the election was conducted under the KMC Act, along with the notifications of the State Election Commission, which mandated disclosure of assets.
• He pointed out that the Appellant had admitted to making false statements in her affidavit.
• Mr. Patil submitted that non-disclosure of assets amounts to “undue influence,” a corrupt practice under Section 39(2) of the KMC Act, read with Section 123(2) of the 1951 RP Act, as interpreted in Lok Prahari.
• He argued that the State Election Commission had the power to issue the notifications, relying on Association for Democratic Reforms and Krishnamoorthy v. Sivakumar & Ors.
• Mr. Patil contended that the Appellant, having accepted the notifications and filed an affidavit, was estopped from questioning their validity.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. 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?
2. Whether non-disclosure of assets would constitute corrupt practice, in the absence of any statutory provision requiring disclosure of assets?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon by the Court:

• Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms, (2002) 5 SCC 294 – Supreme Court of India: This case established the right of voters to know the details of candidates, including their assets, and empowered the Election Commission to call for such information.
• Lok Prahari v. Union of India, (2018) 4 SCC 699 – Supreme Court of India: This case held that non-disclosure of assets and sources of income constitutes a corrupt practice under the 1951 RP Act.
• Krishnamoorthy v. Sivakumar & Ors., (2015) 3 SCC 467 – Supreme Court of India: This case upheld the notification of the Tamil Nadu State Election Commission requiring disclosure of criminal cases against candidates contesting local body elections.
• Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal, (1982) 1 SCC 691 – Supreme Court of India: This case established that election petitions are statutory proceedings and must adhere to the statute.
• Shrikant v. Vasantrao and Others, (2006) 2 SCC 682 – Supreme Court of India: This case reiterated that a person cannot be disqualified unless they suffer a disqualification under the Constitution or the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
• Shailesh Manubhai Parmar v. Election Commission of India, (2018) 9 SCC 100 – Supreme Court of India: This case held that the Election Commission must act within the law made by Parliament.
• State of M. P . v. Centre for Environment Protection Research & Development, (2020) 9 SCC 781 – Supreme Court of India: This case held that when a statute prescribes a penalty for any act or omission, no other penalty not contemplated in the statute or statutory rules can be imposed.
• Tolaram Relumal and Another v. State of Bombay, (1955) 1 SCR 158 – Supreme Court of India: This case held that penal statutes must be construed strictly.
• Bipinchandra Parshottamdas Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2003) 4 SCC 642 – Supreme Court of India: This case held that a law leading to disqualification to hold an office should be clear and unambiguous like a penal law.
• State Bank of India v. Santosh Gupta, (2017) 2 SCC 538 – Supreme Court of India: This case reiterated the characteristics of Indian Federalism.
• State of West Bengal v. Union of India, AIR 1963 SC 1963 – Supreme Court of India: This case discussed the distribution of powers between the Union and the States.

Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:

• Section 39 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (KMC Act): Defines “corrupt practices” by incorporating “undue influence” from Section 123(2) of the 1951 RP Act.
• Section 27 of the KMC Act: Specifies that engaging in corrupt practices entails disqualification for six years.
• Section 35 of the KMC Act: Specifies the grounds for declaring an election void, which includes if the court finds that a candidate has committed a corrupt practice.
• Section 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (1951 RP Act): Defines “undue influence” as interference with the free exercise of any electoral right.
• Article 324 of the Constitution of India: Confers wide powers on the Election Commission to ensure free and fair elections.
• Article 243ZA(1) of the Constitution of India: Confers similar powers on the State Election Commission for municipal elections.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms [ (2002) 5 SCC 294 ]: The Court relied on this case to uphold the Election Commission’s power to direct disclosure of assets.
• Lok Prahari v. Union of India [ (2018) 4 SCC 699 ]: The Court applied the principle that non-disclosure of assets constitutes “undue influence” and a corrupt practice.
• Krishnamoorthy v. Sivakumar & Ors. [ (2015) 3 SCC 467 ]: The Court used this case to support the State Election Commission’s authority to issue directions for disclosure.
• Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal [ (1982) 1 SCC 691 ]: The Court distinguished this case on facts.
• Shrikant v. Vasantrao and Others [ (2006) 2 SCC 682 ]: The Court distinguished this case on facts.
• Shailesh Manubhai Parmar v. Election Commission of India [ (2018) 9 SCC 100 ]: The Court noted that the Election Commission has to act within the law made by Parliament.
• State of M. P . v. Centre for Environment Protection Research & Development [ (2020) 9 SCC 781 ]: The Court distinguished this case on facts.
• Tolaram Relumal and Another v. State of Bombay [ (1955) 1 SCR 158 ]: The Court acknowledged the principle of strict construction of penal statutes.
• Bipinchandra Parshottamdas Patel v. State of Gujarat [ (2003) 4 SCC 642 ]: The Court acknowledged the need for clarity in laws leading to disqualification.
• State Bank of India v. Santosh Gupta [ (2017) 2 SCC 538 ]: The Court relied on this case to reiterate the characteristics of Indian Federalism.
• State of West Bengal v. Union of India [ AIR 1963 SC 1963 ]: The Court relied on this case to discuss the distribution of powers between the Union and the States.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to uphold the purity of elections and ensure transparency in the electoral process. The Court emphasized that voters have a right to know the complete financial background of candidates, including the assets of their spouses, to make informed choices. The Court found that the non-disclosure of assets by the Appellant was a deliberate act that amounted to “undue influence,” a corrupt practice as defined by the KMC Act, which incorporates the definition from the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The Court also stressed that the State Election Commission had the power to issue directions to ensure free and fair elections, and the Appellant, having accepted the requirement to file an affidavit, could not later challenge its validity.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the argument that the KMC Act does not explicitly require disclosure of assets but rejected it, stating that the definition of “undue influence” in Section 123(2) of the 1951 RP Act, which is incorporated in the KMC Act, includes non-disclosure of assets. The Court also rejected the argument that the Election Commission lacked the power to issue the notification, citing its duty to ensure free and fair elections. The Court emphasized that the Appellant had accepted the notification by filing an affidavit and could not later challenge its validity.

The Court’s decision was based on the interpretation of the law and the need to maintain the integrity of the electoral process. The Court stated that a false declaration impacts the election, and it is not necessary to prove the material impact of such false declaration on the election of the candidate.

“In our considered view, 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.”

The Court also said,

“The Election Commission has wide powers under Article 324(1) of the Constitution of India 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 Court further 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.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The bench unanimously agreed on the decision.

Key Takeaways

• Non-disclosure of assets by a candidate, including those of their spouse, in municipal elections constitutes a corrupt practice.
• The State Election Commission has the power to issue directions to ensure free and fair elections, including the requirement for candidates to disclose their assets.
• Candidates cannot challenge the validity of notifications they have accepted and complied with.
• False declarations in election affidavits can lead to disqualification, irrespective of the material impact on the election results.
• The definition of “undue influence” as interpreted in the context of national elections also applies to municipal elections.

This judgment reinforces the importance of transparency and honesty in elections at all levels and sets a precedent for holding candidates accountable for providing accurate information in their election affidavits. It also clarifies the powers of the State Election Commission to issue directions to ensure free and fair elections.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment, other than dismissing the appeal.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no discussion of any specific amendments in this judgment.

Development of Law

Ratio Decidendi (Reason for the Decision):

The ratio decidendi of this judgment is that the non-disclosure of assets by a candidate, including those of their spouse, in municipal elections constitutes a corrupt practice under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (KMC Act). This is because the KMC Act incorporates the definition of “undue influence” from Section 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (1951 RP Act), and the Supreme Court in Lok Prahari v. Union of India has held that non-disclosure of assets falls within the ambit of “undue influence.” Therefore, a false declaration in an election affidavit, even if there is no explicit statutory requirement for disclosure, can lead to disqualification of the candidate.

The court also held that the State Election Commission has the power to issue directions to ensure free and fair elections, including the requirement for candidates to disclose their assets. This power is derived from Article 243ZA(1) of the Constitution of India and is consistent with the powers of the Election Commission under Article 324(1) for national elections. The court also stated that a false declaration impacts the election, and it is not necessary to prove the material impact of such false declaration on the election of the candidate.

Obiter Dicta (Remarks in Passing):

The judgment also includes several obiter dicta, which are not essential to the decision but provide additional guidance and commentary. These include:

• The importance of transparency and honesty in elections at all levels.
• The need for a uniform policy on disclosure of assets in elections across all states.
• The principle that a hypertechnical view of the law should not condone dishonesty and corrupt practices.
• The principle that it is not necessary to prove the material impact of such false declaration on the election of the candidate.

These obiter dicta reinforce the court’s commitment to upholding the integrity of the electoral process and ensuring that voters are fully informed about the financial backgrounds of candidates. They also emphasize the importance of a broad interpretation of laws aimed at preventing corrupt practices in elections.

Related Cases

Here are some related cases that may be of interest:

• Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms, (2002) 5 SCC 294 – Supreme Court of India
• Lok Prahari v. Union of India, (2018) 4 SCC 699 – Supreme Court of India
• Krishnamoorthy v. Sivakumar & Ors., (2015) 3 SCC 467 – Supreme Court of India
• Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal, (1982) 1 SCC 691 – Supreme Court of India
• Shrikant v. Vasantrao and Others, (2006) 2 SCC 682 – Supreme Court of India
• Shailesh Manubhai Parmar v. Election Commission of India, (2018) 9 SCC 100 – Supreme Court of India
• State of M. P . v. Centre for Environment Protection Research & Development, (2020) 9 SCC 781 – Supreme Court of India
• Tolaram Relumal and Another v. State of Bombay, (1955) 1 SCR 158 – Supreme Court of India
• Bipinchandra Parshottamdas Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2003) 4 SCC 642 – Supreme Court of India
• State Bank of India v. Santosh Gupta, (2017) 2 SCC 538 – Supreme Court of India
• State of West Bengal v. Union of India, AIR 1963 SC 1963 – Supreme Court of India