Date of the Judgment: 04 May 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 419
Judges: Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi
Can an election be invalidated because a candidate did not disclose their spouse’s foreign income tax details? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, clarifying the extent of disclosure required in election affidavits. The Court held that the omission to provide details of a spouse’s foreign income tax, when those details were not applicable, does not constitute a material defect that would invalidate an election. This judgment emphasizes the importance of material facts in election petitions and sets a precedent for future cases involving similar disclosure issues. The majority opinion was authored by Justice Bela M. Trivedi.
Case Background
The case stems from the 17th Lok Sabha elections, where the appellant, Kanimozhi Karunanidhi, contested from the No. 36-Thoothukudy Lok Sabha Constituency. The elections were held on April 18, 2019, and the appellant was declared the winner on May 23, 2019, with a significant margin of 3,47,209 votes. The election petitioner, A. Santhana Kumar, filed an election petition challenging the appellant’s election. The petitioner alleged that the appellant failed to disclose her spouse’s income tax details in the affidavit submitted along with her nomination papers. Specifically, the petitioner contended that the appellant did not provide the PAN number, the last financial year of filing income tax returns, and the total income shown in the income tax returns for the past five financial years for her spouse, who is a citizen of Singapore.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 19.03.2019 | Notification issued by the Chief Election Commissioner for the 17th Lok Sabha elections. |
| 18.04.2019 | Elections held for the 17th Lok Sabha. |
| 27.03.2019 | Scrutiny of nomination papers by the Returning Officer. |
| 23.05.2019 | Appellant declared elected from No. 36 Thoothukudy Lok Sabha Constituency. |
Course of Proceedings
The election petitioner filed Election Petition No. 3/2019 before the High Court of Judicature at Madras, seeking to declare the appellant’s election void. The appellant filed Original Application (OA) No. 929/2019 to strike off paragraphs 5 to 17 of the Election Petition, and OA No. 930/2019 to reject the Election Petition, arguing that the allegations were vague and lacked material facts. The High Court dismissed both OAs, leading to the current appeals before the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The case is governed by several key legal provisions:
- Article 324 of the Constitution of India: This article vests the superintendence, direction, and control of elections in the Election Commission of India.
- Section 80 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RP Act): This section states that no election shall be called in question except by an election petition.
- Section 81 of the RP Act: This section deals with the presentation of election petitions, specifying who can file a petition and within what time frame.
- Section 83 of the RP Act: This section outlines the contents of an election petition, requiring a concise statement of material facts. Specifically,
Section 83(1)(a) states that an election petition shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies.
- Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the RP Act: This section specifies the grounds for declaring an election void, including non-compliance with the Constitution, the Act, or any rules made under the Act, if such non-compliance materially affects the election result.
Section 100(1)(d)(iv) states that if the High Court is of the opinion that the result of the election has been materially affected by any non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or of this Act or of any rules or orders made under this Act, the High Court shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void.
- Rule 4A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961: This rule mandates the submission of an affidavit in Form 26 along with the nomination paper.
Rule 4A states that the candidate shall deliver to the returning officer an affidavit sworn by the candidate before a Magistrate of the first class or a Notary in Form 26.
- Section 33 of the RP Act: Pertains to the presentation of nomination paper and the requirements for a valid nomination.
- Section 36 of the RP Act: Pertains to the scrutiny of nominations by the Returning Officer.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments (Kanimozhi Karunanidhi):
- The election petition lacks material facts, making it liable for dismissal under Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act.
- The petitioner failed to specify which facts were suppressed and how they materially affected the election result.
- Reliance was placed on Ram Sukh vs. Dinesh Aggarwal [2009 (10) SCC 541] and Hari Shanker Jain vs. Sonia Gandhi [2001 (8) SCC 233] to argue that material facts include positive statements of facts and positive averments of negative facts.
- Citing Samant N. Balkrishna & Anr. vs. George Fernandez & Ors. [1969 (3) SCC 238], the appellant argued that failure to plead a single material fact leads to an incomplete cause of action.
- The appellant contended that if certain columns in Form 26 are not applicable, it does not amount to suppression of facts.
Respondent’s Arguments (A. Santhana Kumar):
- The appellant violated the law laid down in Union of India vs. Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. [2002 (5) SCC 294], which requires disclosure of assets and liabilities of candidates and their family members, regardless of citizenship.
- The appellant failed to disclose the status of filing income tax returns of her spouse in a foreign country, as required by Form 26.
- The non-disclosure of financial status deprived voters of the opportunity to make informed decisions.
- The lack of transparency and non-disclosure of facts materially affected the election result.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of Material Facts |
|
Appellant |
| Non-Disclosure of Information |
|
Respondent |
| Form 26 Compliance |
|
Appellant |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court addressed the following issues:
- Whether the election petition contained a concise statement of material facts as required under Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act.
- Whether the non-disclosure of the spouse’s foreign income tax details constituted a material defect that would invalidate the election under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the RP Act.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court:
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the election petition contained a concise statement of material facts as required under Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act. | The Court held that the election petition lacked material facts, as it did not specify what information was suppressed and how it materially affected the election result. |
| Whether the non-disclosure of the spouse’s foreign income tax details constituted a material defect that would invalidate the election under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the RP Act. | The Court ruled that the non-disclosure of the spouse’s foreign income tax details, when those details were not applicable, did not constitute a material defect that would invalidate the election. The Court emphasized that the petitioner failed to show how the non-compliance materially affected the election result. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was considered | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| N.P. Ponnuswami vs. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency & Ors. [1952 (1) SCC 94] | Supreme Court of India | Referred | Nature of the right to elect and dispute an election. |
| Jagan Nath vs. Jaswant Singh & Ors. [AIR 1954 SC 210] | Supreme Court of India | Referred | Nature of the right to elect and dispute an election. |
| Bhikji Keshao Joshi & Anr. vs. Brijlal Nandlal Biyani & Ors. [AIR 1955 SC 610] | Supreme Court of India | Referred | Nature of the right to elect and dispute an election. |
| Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar vs. Roop Singh Rathore & Ors. [AIR 1964 SC 1545] | Supreme Court of India | Referred | Nature of the right to elect and dispute an election. |
| Union of India vs. Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. [2002 (5) SCC 294] | Supreme Court of India | Referred | Powers of the Election Commission and the right of voters to know relevant particulars of candidates. |
| Samant N. Balkrishna & Anr. vs. George Fernandez & Ors. [1969 (3) SCC 238] | Supreme Court of India | Referred | Importance of material facts in election petitions. |
| Hari Shanker Jain vs. Sonia Gandhi [2001 (8) SCC 233] | Supreme Court of India | Referred | Requirement of material facts in election petitions. |
| Mahadeorao Sukaji Shivankar vs. Ramaratan Bapu & Ors. [2004 (7) SCC 181] | Supreme Court of India | Referred | Distinction between material facts and particulars. |
| Anil Vasudev Salgaonkar vs. Naresh Kushali Shigaonkar [2009 (9) SCC 310] | Supreme Court of India | Referred | Dismissal of election petitions that do not furnish a cause of action. |
| Ram Sukh vs. Dinesh Aggarwal [2009 (10) SCC 541] | Supreme Court of India | Referred | Requirement of specific averments in election petitions. |
| Virender Nath Gautam v. Satpal Singh [(2007) 3 SCC 617] | Supreme Court of India | Referred | Distinction between facta probanda and facta probantia. |
| Hardwari Lal v. Kanwal Singh [(1972) 1 SCC 214] | Supreme Court of India | Referred | Dismissal of election petition for want of cause of action. |
| Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi [1986 Supp SCC 315] | Supreme Court of India | Referred | Omission of a single material fact would lead to incomplete cause of action. |
| Udhav Singh v. Madhav Rao Scindia [(1977) 1 SCC 511] | Supreme Court of India | Referred | Primary facts which must be proved by a party to establish a cause of action are material facts. |
| V.Narayanaswamy v. C.P . Thirunavukkarasu [(2000) 2 SCC 294] | Supreme Court of India | Referred | Election petition is liable to be dismissed if it lacks in material facts. |
| L.R. Shivaramagowda v. T.M. Chandrashekar [(1999) 1 SCC 666] | Supreme Court of India | Referred | Importance of pleadings in an election petition alleging corrupt practice. |
| H.D. Revanna case [(1999) 2 SCC 217] | Supreme Court of India | Referred | Non-compliance with Section 83 may lead to dismissal of the petition. |
| Harmohinder Singh Pradhan v. Ranjeet Singh Talwandi [(2005) 5 SCC 46] | Supreme Court of India | Referred | Necessary averment of facts constituting an appeal on the ground of ‘his religion’ to vote would be material facts. |
| Harkirat Singh v. Amrinder Singh [(2005) 13 SCC 511] | Supreme Court of India | Referred | Distinction between ‘material facts’ and ‘material particulars’. |
| Sudarsha Avasthi v. Shiv Pal Singh [(2008) 7 SCC 604] | Supreme Court of India | Referred | Election petition is a serious matter and it cannot be treated lightly. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s submission that the election petition lacked material facts as required by Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act. | The Court agreed with the appellant, stating that the petition did not specify which facts were suppressed and how they materially affected the election result. |
| Respondent’s submission that the appellant failed to disclose the status of filing income tax returns of her spouse in a foreign country, as required by Form 26. | The Court held that the non-disclosure of the spouse’s foreign income tax details, when those details were not applicable, did not constitute a material defect that would invalidate the election. |
| Appellant’s reliance on Ram Sukh vs. Dinesh Aggarwal [2009 (10) SCC 541] and Hari Shanker Jain vs. Sonia Gandhi [2001 (8) SCC 233]. | The Court upheld the principle that material facts include positive statements of facts and positive averments of negative facts. |
| Appellant’s reliance on Samant N. Balkrishna & Anr. vs. George Fernandez & Ors. [1969 (3) SCC 238]. | The Court agreed that failure to plead a single material fact leads to an incomplete cause of action. |
| Respondent’s reliance on Union of India vs. Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. [2002 (5) SCC 294]. | The Court noted the direction to disclose assets and liabilities of candidates and their family members but clarified that this did not mean that if the information was not applicable, it would amount to suppression of facts. |
The Court held that the election petition did not meet the requirements of Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act, as it lacked a concise statement of material facts. The Court emphasized that the petitioner failed to specify what information was suppressed and how it materially affected the election result. The Court also noted that the appellant had filled in all the columns of Form 26 by furnishing the information with regard to her Permanent Account Number and status of filing of income tax return etc. and of her husband wherever applicable.
The Court further stated that mere bald and vague allegations without any basis would not be sufficient compliance with the requirement of stating material facts in the Election Petition. The Court observed that not only a positive statement of facts, but even a positive statement of a negative fact is also required to be stated, as it would be a material fact constituting a cause of action. The Court held that the omission of a single material fact would lead to an incomplete cause of action, entitling the returned candidate to pray for dismissal of the Election petition.
The Court also highlighted that the Returning Officer did not find any lapse or non-compliance of Section 33 or Rule 4A of the Rules during the scrutiny of the nomination paper and the affidavit in Form 26. The court concluded that the election petition lacked material facts constituting a cause of action under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the RP Act.
The Court quoted from the judgment:
“The material facts which are primary and basic facts have to be pleaded by the Election petitioner in support of the case set up by him to show his cause of action and omission of a single material fact would lead to an incomplete cause of action, entitling the returned candidate to pray for dismissal of Election petition under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC read with Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act.”
“In absence of material facts constituting cause of action for filing Election petition under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the said Act, the Election petition is required to be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC read with Section 13(1)(a) of the RP Act.”
“The omission to state such vital and basic facts has rendered the petition liable to be dismissed under Order VII, Rule 11(a) CPC read with Section 83(i)(a) of the RP Act, 1951.”
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and dismissed the election petition.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the lack of material facts in the election petition. The court emphasized that the petitioner did not provide specific details on how the alleged non-disclosure materially affected the election results. The court also considered that the appellant had filled in all applicable columns of Form 26. The court’s reasoning was rooted in the established legal principle that an election petition must contain a concise statement of material facts, and the omission of such facts leads to an incomplete cause of action.
The Court’s focus was on ensuring that election petitions are not used for vexatious purposes and that they adhere to the statutory requirements of stating material facts.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Lack of Material Facts in the Petition | 40% |
| Petitioner’s Failure to Specify Impact on Election Results | 30% |
| Compliance of Appellant in filling out Form 26 | 20% |
| Statutory Requirement of Material Facts | 10% |
| Fact | Law |
|---|---|
| 30% | 70% |
Fact: Percentage of the consideration of the factual aspects of the case.
Law: Percentage of legal considerations.
Key Takeaways
- Election petitions must contain a concise statement of material facts, including how the alleged non-compliance materially affected the election result.
- Non-disclosure of information in an election affidavit does not automatically invalidate an election; the information must be material and applicable.
- The burden of proof lies on the election petitioner to demonstrate how non-compliance with the law has materially affected the election result.
- Returning officers must scrutinize nomination papers and affidavits carefully, but their failure to raise objections does not preclude an election petition, provided it adheres to statutory requirements.
- This judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to the statutory requirements for filing election petitions and prevents vexatious or frivolous petitions.
Directions
No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that an election petition must contain specific material facts demonstrating how any non-compliance with the Constitution, the RP Act, or its rules has materially affected the election result. The mere omission of information, particularly if it is not applicable, does not automatically invalidate an election. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position on the importance of material facts in election petitions and clarifies that non-disclosure must be material and directly linked to the outcome of the election to warrant its invalidation. The Court reaffirmed the principles laid down in various previous judgments, emphasizing the necessity of specific averments in election petitions.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in this case underscores the critical importance of material facts in election petitions. The Court held that the election petition filed by the respondent lacked specific details on how the alleged non-disclosure of the appellant’s spouse’s foreign income tax details materially affected the election result. The Court clarified that non-disclosure of information, particularly if it is not applicable, does not automatically invalidate an election. This judgment reinforces the need for election petitions to be based on concrete facts and not on vague allegations, ensuring the integrity of the electoral process while safeguarding against frivolous challenges. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and dismissed the election petition.
Category
Parent Category: Election Law
Child Categories:
- Election Petitions
- Representation of the People Act, 1951
- Section 83, Representation of the People Act, 1951
- Section 100, Representation of the People Act, 1951
- Conduct of Election Rules, 1961
- Form 26
- Material Facts
- Disclosure Requirements
- Affidavits
- Supreme Court Judgments
FAQ
Q: What is the main issue in this Supreme Court case?
A: The main issue was whether an election should be invalidated because the winning candidate did not disclose their spouse’s foreign income tax details in their election affidavit.
Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?
A: The Supreme Court decided that the omission to provide details of a spouse’s foreign income tax, when those details were not applicable, does not constitute a material defect that would invalidate an election.
Q: What are “material facts” in an election petition?
A: Material facts are the primary and basic facts that, if proven, would support the petitioner’s claim and constitute a cause of action. They must be specifically stated in the petition.
Q: What is the significance of Form 26 in election law?
A: Form 26 is an affidavit that candidates must submit along with their nomination papers, disclosing various personal and financial details.
Q: Can an election be invalidated if a candidate fails to disclose some information?
A: Not necessarily. The non-disclosure must pertain to material facts, and the petitioner must prove that this non-disclosure materially affected the election results.
Q: What does this judgment mean for future election petitions?
A: This judgment emphasizes that election petitions must be based on concrete facts and not on vague allegations. It also clarifies that non-disclosure must be material and directly linked to the election’s outcome to warrant invalidation.
Q: What is Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951?
A: Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 outlines the contents of an election petition, requiring a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies.
Q: What is Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951?
A: Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 specifies the grounds for declaring an election void, including non-compliance with the Constitution, the Act, or any rules made under the Act, if such non-compliance materially affects the election result.