LEGAL ISSUE: Whether non-disclosure of a deceased spouse’s property in a nomination affidavit is a substantial defect under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
CASE TYPE: Election Law
Case Name: Dasanglu Pul vs. Lupalum Kri
Judgment Date: 19 October 2023
Date of the Judgment: 19 October 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 930
Judges: A.S. Bopanna, J. and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.
Can a candidate’s election be invalidated for not disclosing her deceased husband’s property in her nomination papers? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, focusing on whether such non-disclosure constitutes a ‘substantial defect’ under election law. This case examines the nuances of property disclosure requirements for candidates and the impact of customary laws on inheritance. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha.
Case Background
The appellant, Dasanglu Pul, and her late husband belonged to the Mishmi tribe in Arunachal Pradesh. Her husband, Late Khaliko Pul, was a sitting Member of the Legislative Assembly. As per tribal custom, Dasanglu Pul was his third wife, married in May 2015. Khaliko Pul passed away intestate on August 9, 2016, leaving behind three wives and seven sons.
Following her husband’s death, Dasanglu Pul successfully contested the bye-election on November 19, 2016. When fresh elections were notified on March 18, 2019, she filed her nomination on March 22, 2019, including an affidavit in Form 26 as required by the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. The respondent, Lupalum Kri, also filed a nomination for the same constituency.
On March 26, 2019, Lupalum Kri challenged Dasanglu Pul’s nomination, arguing that she had not disclosed her interest in her deceased husband’s properties in her affidavit. He contended that this non-disclosure was a substantial defect that warranted the rejection of her nomination. The Returning Officer rejected this objection and accepted Dasanglu Pul’s nomination. Dasanglu Pul won the election held on April 11, 2019, securing 5663 votes against Lupalum Kri’s 4591 votes.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| May 2015 | Dasanglu Pul married Late Khaliko Pul as his third wife. |
| August 9, 2016 | Late Khaliko Pul passed away intestate. |
| November 19, 2016 | Dasanglu Pul won the bye-election. |
| March 18, 2019 | Elections were notified. |
| March 22, 2019 | Dasanglu Pul filed her nomination. |
| March 26, 2019 | Lupalum Kri challenged Dasanglu Pul’s nomination. |
| April 11, 2019 | Elections were held. |
| May 23, 2019 | Results were declared; Dasanglu Pul won. |
| July 3, 2019 | Lupalum Kri filed an Election Petition in the Gauhati High Court. |
| January 20, 2020 | Dasanglu Pul filed a Recrimination Case. |
| April 25, 2023 | Gauhati High Court declared the election of Dasanglu Pul as void. |
| October 19, 2023 | Supreme Court set aside the High Court order and dismissed the Election Petition. |
Course of Proceedings
Lupalum Kri filed Election Petition No. 3/2019 before the Gauhati High Court, Itanagar Bench, challenging Dasanglu Pul’s election. He argued that the improper acceptance of her nomination materially affected the election results. Dasanglu Pul filed a Recrimination Case No. 1(AP)/2020, alleging that Lupalum Kri held an office of profit, making his nomination liable to be rejected. The High Court framed eight issues for consideration.
Lupalum Kri testified as PW-1, and the Returning Officer as PW-2. Dasanglu Pul presented 14 witnesses, including family members, her advocate, and her election agent. The High Court concluded that Dasanglu Pul had not disclosed her deceased husband’s properties in Form-26, marking ‘not applicable’ in the relevant column. This was deemed a substantial defect leading to the improper acceptance of her nomination, thus voiding her election.
Legal Framework
The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the following provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951:
- Section 33 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951: This section deals with the presentation of nomination papers. It mandates that a candidate must submit a nomination paper in the prescribed form, containing all necessary details.
- Section 36(2)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951: This section specifies the grounds for rejecting a nomination paper. It states that a nomination paper can be rejected if there is a failure to comply with the provisions of Section 33, or if there is a defect of a substantial character.
- Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951: This section provides that an election can be declared void if the High Court is of the opinion that the result of the election, insofar as it concerns a returned candidate, has been materially affected by the improper acceptance of any nomination.
These provisions ensure that candidates provide accurate and complete information in their nomination papers. The non-compliance with these provisions can lead to the rejection of the nomination and, if the candidate has won, the invalidation of the election.
Arguments
Appellant’s (Dasanglu Pul) Arguments:
- Dasanglu Pul argued that she had correctly marked ‘not applicable’ in the spouse’s property column of Form 26 because, according to the Mishmi tribe’s customary law, she had no claim to her deceased husband’s properties. The properties would devolve upon the first wife.
- She contended that the legal heir certificate issued to the first wife, though challenged, did not grant her any title to the properties.
- She submitted that her challenge to the legal heir certificate was primarily to secure documents for a specific plot of land (Plot No. 230) that her husband had intended for her.
- She argued that the non-disclosure, if any, was not a substantial defect that could materially affect the election results.
Respondent’s (Lupalum Kri) Arguments:
- Lupalum Kri argued that Dasanglu Pul’s failure to disclose her deceased husband’s properties in Form 26 was a substantial defect, as she had an interest in those properties as one of his wives.
- He contended that the legal heir certificate issued to the first wife had been set aside as on the date of filing of nomination, and therefore, the properties of the deceased husband ought to have been mentioned in Form 26.
- He relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Kisan Shankar Kathore vs. Arun Dattatray Sawant (2014) 14 SCC 162 to argue that non-disclosure of a spouse’s property is a substantial lapse.
- He submitted that the improper acceptance of Dasanglu Pul’s nomination had materially affected the result of the election.
Submissions
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Appellant (Dasanglu Pul): Non-disclosure not a substantial defect |
|
| Respondent (Lupalum Kri): Non-disclosure is a substantial defect |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:
- Whether the indication made by the appellant in Form-26, as ‘not applicable’ in the column relating to ‘spouse’, in the facts and circumstance emerging herein would amount to non-disclosure of the properties owned by her spouse, as would be understood in a normal case and whether that would amount to a defect of substantial character requiring rejection of the nomination papers more particularly of a successful candidate after the election as having materially affected the result.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision and Reasoning |
|---|---|
| Whether the indication made by the appellant in Form-26, as ‘not applicable’ in the column relating to ‘spouse’ is a substantial defect? | The Court held that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the non-disclosure was not a substantial defect. The appellant had no claim to the properties of her deceased husband as per the customary law of the Mishmi tribe. The Court noted that the legal heir certificate was not a document of title and that the appellant had only challenged the certificate to secure the documents of a specific plot of land. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Legal Point | How the Authority was Used |
|---|---|---|
| Kisan Shankar Kathore vs. Arun Dattatray Sawant (2014) 14 SCC 162, Supreme Court of India | Non-disclosure of spouse’s property | The Court distinguished the facts of this case from the present case. In Kisan Shankar Kathore, the non-disclosure of a living spouse’s property was held to be a substantial lapse. However, in the present case, the Court reasoned that the appellant’s deceased husband’s property was not required to be disclosed since she had no claim to it. |
| Mairembam Prithviraj @ Prithviraj Singh vs. Pukhrem Sharatchandra Singh (2017) 2 SCC 487, Supreme Court of India | Improper acceptance of nomination | The Court held that the principle enunciated in this case was not applicable to the present facts as the nomination was not improperly accepted. |
| Union of India vs. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002) 5 SCC 294, Supreme Court of India | Disclosure of assets | The Court noted that even if the object of disclosure of assets is kept in view, the facts involved herein would indicate that the allegation herein cannot be taken as non-disclosure though it could have been open for the appellant to indicate this aspect in the affidavit but in any event, it is not a substantial defect so as to materially affect the result of the election in the facts and circumstances herein. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Party | Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Appellant (Dasanglu Pul) | Non-disclosure not a substantial defect due to customary law and no claim to property. | Accepted. The Court agreed that the appellant had no claim to the deceased husband’s properties and the non-disclosure was not a substantial defect. |
| Respondent (Lupalum Kri) | Non-disclosure is a substantial defect due to interest in property and setting aside of legal heir certificate. | Rejected. The Court held that the legal heir certificate was not a document of title and that the appellant did not have any claim to the deceased husband’s properties. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Supreme Court distinguished the case of Kisan Shankar Kathore vs. Arun Dattatray Sawant (2014) 14 SCC 162, stating that in that case, the non-disclosure related to a living spouse’s property, whereas in the present case, the property belonged to a deceased spouse, and the appellant had no claim to it.
- The Supreme Court stated that the principle enunciated in Mairembam Prithviraj @ Prithviraj Singh vs. Pukhrem Sharatchandra Singh (2017) 2 SCC 487 was not applicable to the present facts as the nomination was not improperly accepted.
- The Supreme Court referred to the object of disclosure of assets as stated in Union of India vs. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002) 5 SCC 294 and held that the allegation herein cannot be taken as non-disclosure though it could have been open for the appellant to indicate this aspect in the affidavit but in any event, it is not a substantial defect so as to materially affect the result of the election in the facts and circumstances herein.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the specific factual matrix of the case, particularly the customary laws of the Mishmi tribe and the appellant’s lack of claim to her deceased husband’s properties. The Court emphasized that the non-disclosure of the properties was not a substantial defect that could materially affect the election results. The Court also took into consideration the fact that the appellant had challenged the legal heir certificate not to claim the properties but to secure documents for a specific plot of land.
Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Customary law of Mishmi tribe | 30% |
| Appellant’s lack of claim to the properties | 35% |
| Legal heir certificate not a document of title | 15% |
| Appellant’s challenge to the legal heir certificate | 20% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact (Consideration of Factual Aspects) | 70% |
| Law (Legal Considerations) | 30% |
Logical Reasoning
The Court reasoned that the appellant’s non-disclosure was not a substantial defect due to the unique circumstances of the case. The Court also considered the fact that the legal heir certificate was not a document of title and that the appellant had only challenged the certificate to secure the documents of a specific plot of land. The Court noted that the appellant had no claim to the deceased husband’s properties as per the customary law of the Mishmi tribe.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in applying the principle enunciated in Mairembam Prithviraj @ Prithviraj Singh vs. Pukhrem Sharatchandra Singh (2017) 2 SCC 487 to the facts of the present case. The Supreme Court also noted that the object of disclosure of assets as stated in Union of India vs. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002) 5 SCC 294 was not violated in the present case.
The Court quoted from the judgment:
- “It would be appropriate only to notice as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case where the appellant herself has no claim to the properties after the succession has opened, the non-mentioning of the properties as belonging to that of the spouse was a substantial defect.”
- “…the legal heir certificate by itself cannot be construed as a document of title to the property. It is a mode to determine the heirship based on which the consequential actions would follow.”
- “Therefore, for all the above-stated reasons the judgment and order dated 25.04.2023 passed by the Gauhati High Court, Itanagar Bench in Election Petition No.3 of 2019 is set aside and the Election Petition No.3 of 2019 is consequently dismissed.”
Key Takeaways
- Non-disclosure of a deceased spouse’s property in a nomination affidavit is not automatically a substantial defect.
- Customary laws and inheritance practices play a crucial role in determining property rights.
- The context and specific facts of each case are vital in determining whether a non-disclosure is a substantial defect.
- Legal heir certificates are not documents of title but are used to determine heirship.
- This judgment provides clarity on the interpretation of disclosure requirements under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, in cases involving deceased spouses and customary laws.
Directions
The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions other than setting aside the High Court order and dismissing the Election Petition.
Specific Amendments Analysis
There is no specific amendment analysis in the judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the non-disclosure of a deceased spouse’s property in a nomination affidavit is not a substantial defect if the candidate has no claim to the property under applicable customary laws. This judgment clarifies that the disclosure requirements under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, must be interpreted in the context of the specific facts and circumstances of each case, including customary laws and inheritance practices. The Supreme Court has not changed the previous position of law, but has clarified the position of law in the context of the facts of the case.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Gauhati High Court’s judgment. The Court held that Dasanglu Pul’s non-disclosure of her deceased husband’s properties in her nomination affidavit was not a substantial defect, given her lack of claim to those properties under Mishmi tribal customs. The Court emphasized that election laws must be interpreted in light of the specific facts and circumstances of each case, including customary laws and inheritance practices. The Election Petition was dismissed, and Dasanglu Pul’s election was upheld.
Category
- Election Law
- Representation of the People Act, 1951
- Section 33, Representation of the People Act, 1951
- Section 36(2)(b), Representation of the People Act, 1951
- Section 100(1)(d)(iv), Representation of the People Act, 1951
- Nomination Affidavit
- Customary Law
- Inheritance Law
FAQ
Q: What was the main issue in the Dasanglu Pul vs. Lupalum Kri case?
A: The main issue was whether a candidate’s failure to disclose her deceased husband’s property in her nomination affidavit was a substantial defect under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?
A: The Supreme Court held that the non-disclosure was not a substantial defect because the candidate had no claim to the property under the customary laws of her tribe.
Q: What is a substantial defect in the context of election law?
A: A substantial defect is a significant flaw or omission in a nomination paper that can lead to its rejection. It must be serious enough to potentially affect the integrity of the electoral process.
Q: How do customary laws affect property rights in India?
A: Customary laws, which are traditional practices and norms followed by certain communities, can have a significant impact on property rights, especially in matters of inheritance and succession. These laws are often recognized and considered by Indian courts.
Q: What is the significance of a legal heir certificate?
A: A legal heir certificate is a document that identifies the legal heirs of a deceased person. It is not a document of title to property but is used to determine who is entitled to inherit the deceased person’s assets.
Q: What should candidates keep in mind while filing their nomination papers?
A: Candidates should ensure that they disclose all relevant information accurately in their nomination papers, including details of their assets and liabilities. They should also be aware of any customary laws that may affect their property rights.