Supreme Court Upholds Election of Karikho Kri: Non-Disclosure of Assets Not Always Fatal

Date of the Judgment: April 9, 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 289
Judges: Aniruddha Bose, J. and Sanjay Kumar, J.
Is every non-disclosure of assets by a candidate in an election a ground to invalidate their win? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in an election dispute from Arunachal Pradesh. The Court clarified that not all non-disclosures are fatal and that a distinction must be drawn between substantial and insubstantial issues. This judgment has significant implications for election law and the interpretation of disclosure requirements for candidates. The bench comprised Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar, with the opinion authored by Justice Sanjay Kumar.

Case Background

In the 2019 Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly elections, Karikho Kri, an independent candidate, won the 44 Tezu (ST) Assembly Constituency seat. Nuney Tayang, a candidate from the Indian National Congress, filed an election petition challenging Kri’s victory. Tayang alleged that Kri’s nomination was improperly accepted due to non-disclosure of assets and other material information in his affidavit (Form 26) submitted to the Returning Officer.

Specifically, Tayang claimed that Kri failed to disclose ownership of certain vehicles registered in the names of his wife and son, did not submit a ‘No Dues Certificate’ for a government accommodation he had previously occupied, and made contradictory statements regarding municipal and property taxes. The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh at Itanagar, partially allowed the election petition, declaring Kri’s election void. Aggrieved by this, Kri appealed to the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh at Itanagar, after considering the evidence and arguments, declared Karikho Kri’s election void. The High Court held that Kri had improperly failed to disclose the vehicles registered in the names of his wife and son, failed to submit a ‘No Dues Certificate’ for his previous government accommodation, and made contradictory statements regarding municipal and property taxes. The High Court concluded that these non-disclosures amounted to a ‘corrupt practice’ and materially affected the election results. Karikho Kri appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, while Nuney Tayang also filed a cross-appeal seeking to be declared the winner.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined the relevant provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, specifically:

• Section 33: Deals with the presentation of nomination papers and the requirements for a valid nomination.
• Section 36: Governs the scrutiny of nominations by the Returning Officer. Sub-section (4) mandates that a Returning Officer shall not reject any nomination paper on the ground of any defect which is not of a substantial character.
• Section 100: Specifies the grounds for declaring an election to be void. This includes:
  • Section 100(1)(b): If a corrupt practice has been committed by the returned candidate.
  • Section 100(1)(d)(i): If the result of the election has been materially affected by the improper acceptance of any nomination.
  • Section 100(1)(d)(iv): If 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.
• Section 123: Defines ‘corrupt practices’. Specifically, sub-section (2) defines ‘undue influence’ as any direct or indirect interference or attempt to interfere with the free exercise of any electoral right.

The Court also considered Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which defines “owner” as the person in whose name a motor vehicle is registered.

The Court also referred to the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, which governs the transfer of ownership of goods.

Arguments

Arguments of Nuney Tayang (Respondent):

• Non-disclosure of Vehicles: Karikho Kri failed to disclose ownership of a Kinetic Zing Scooty, a Maruti Omni Van, and a TVS Star City Motorcycle, registered in the names of his wife and son, respectively, in his affidavit. This non-disclosure was a material defect and a corrupt practice.

• Non-submission of ‘No Dues Certificate’: Kri did not submit a ‘No Dues Certificate’ regarding his previous government accommodation, which was a mandatory requirement.

• Contradictory Statements on Taxes: Kri made contradictory statements in his affidavit regarding the liability of himself and his wife in respect of municipal and property taxes.

• Improper Acceptance of Nomination: The Returning Officer improperly accepted Kri’s nomination despite these defects, which materially affected the election results.

• Corrupt Practice: The non-disclosure of assets amounted to a corrupt practice of undue influence under Section 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

• Violation of Voter’s Right to Know: The non-disclosure violated the voter’s right to know the complete information about the candidate.

Arguments of Karikho Kri (Appellant):

• Vehicles Not Owned: The vehicles in question were sold or gifted before the nomination date, even though they remained registered in the names of his wife and son. He had submitted documents to show that the vehicles were not with him.

• ‘No Dues Certificate’ Not Required: He had cleared all dues related to his previous government accommodation and had submitted ‘No Dues Certificates’ in 2014 when he contested the election. There were no outstanding dues.

• Disclosure of Taxes: He did disclose the tax dues in one part of his affidavit, even if not in another.

• No Material Effect: The alleged non-disclosures were not of a substantial nature and did not materially affect the election results.

• No Undue Influence: The non-disclosure did not amount to an attempt to unduly influence the voters.

• Substantial Compliance: He had substantially complied with the disclosure requirements, and the defects were not of a substantial character.

Arguments of Dr. Mohesh Chai:

• Dr. Mohesh Chai, the second-highest vote getter, did not contest the case before the High Court but was represented by counsel before the Supreme Court.

• He filed replies in both appeals.

Innovativeness of the argument: The arguments by Karikho Kri were innovative in that they distinguished between the legal ownership of a vehicle for the purposes of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the actual ownership for the purposes of election law.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following key issues:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in holding that the grounds under Sections 100(1)(b), 100(1)(d)(i), and 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, were established, warranting the invalidation of the election of Karikho Kri.
2. Whether the High Court’s finding that Karikho Kri committed a ‘corrupt practice’ within the meaning of Section 123(2) of the Act of 1951 was correct.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon by the Court:

• Naveen Kumar vs. Vijay Kumar and others [(2018) 3 SCC 1] – The Supreme Court of India. This case was considered in the context of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to determine who is the owner of a vehicle for the purposes of liability in case of an accident. The Court held that the registered owner is liable. The Supreme Court in the present case distinguished this case by stating that it was in the context of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and not for general application.
• Santosh Yadav vs. Narender Singh [(2002) 1 SCC 160] – The Supreme Court of India. This case established that the success of a winning candidate at an election should not be lightly interfered with.
• Harsh Kumar vs. Bhagwan Sahai Rawat and others [(2003) 7 SCC 709] – The Supreme Court of India. This case also reiterated that the success of a winning candidate at an election should not be lightly interfered with.
• Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala vs. K.T.C. Automobiles [(2016) 4 SCC 82] – The Supreme Court of India. This case discussed when the property in a motor vehicle passes to the buyer. The Supreme Court distinguished this case by noting that it was in the context of the first sale of a vehicle, as opposed to a subsequent sale.
• Surendra Kumar Bhilawe vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [(2020) 18 SCC 224] – The Supreme Court of India. This case dealt with the liability of an insurance company when the vehicle was sold but the insured remained the registered owner. The Supreme Court distinguished this case by noting that it dealt with the liability of an insurer in the event of an accident.
• Kisan Shankar Kathore vs. Arun Dattatray Sawant and others [(2014) 14 SCC 162] – The Supreme Court of India. This case discussed the non-disclosure of assets and government dues in a nomination and its impact on the election of the returned candidate. The Supreme Court relied on this case to show that not all non-disclosures are fatal.
• Vashist Narain Sharma vs. Dev Chandra and others [(1954) 2 SCC 32] – The Supreme Court of India. This case discussed the burden of proving that the improper acceptance of a nomination has materially affected the result of an election.
• Hari Vishnu Kamath vs. Syed Ahmad Ishaque and others [(1954) 2 SCC 881] – The Supreme Court of India. This case considered the scope of inquiry under Section 100(1)(d) of the Act of 1951 and held that two conditions must be satisfied before an election can be set aside.
• Kamta Prasad Upadhyaya vs. Sarjoo Prasad Tiwari and others [(1969) 3 SCC 622] – The Supreme Court of India. This case affirmed the legal position settled by Vashist Narain (supra).
• Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and others [(2020) 7 SCC 111] – The Supreme Court of India. This case affirmed the view taken in Vashist Narain (supra) that, where a person whose nomination has been improperly accepted is the returned candidate himself, it may be readily conceded that the conclusion has to be that the result of the election was ‘materially affected’.
• Madiraju Venkata Ramana Raju vs. Peddireddigari Ramachandra Reddy and others [(2018) 14 SCC 1] – The Supreme Court of India. This case affirmed that if there are more than two candidates and if the nomination of one of the defeated candidates has been improperly accepted, a question might arise as to whether the result of the election of the returned candidate has been materially affected by such improper reception, but that would not be so in the case of challenge to the election of the returned candidate himself on the ground of improper acceptance of his nomination.
• Resurgence India vs. Election Commission of India and another [(2014) 14 SCC 189] – The Supreme Court of India. This case discussed the importance of disclosing complete information in nomination papers.
• Union of India vs. Association for Democratic Reforms and another [(2002) 5 SCC 294] – The Supreme Court of India. This case discussed the right of citizens to know the criminal antecedents, assets, liabilities, and educational qualifications of candidates.
• Lok Prahari through its General Secretary S.N. Shukla vs. Union of India and others [(2018) 4 SCC 699] – The Supreme Court of India. This case observed that non-disclosure of assets and sources of income of candidates and their associates would constitute a corrupt practice.
• S. Rukmini Madegowda vs. State Election Commission and others [(2022) SCC OnLine SC 1218] – The Supreme Court of India. This case observed that a false declaration with regard to the assets of a candidate, his/her spouse, or dependents, would constitute a corrupt practice.
• Mairembam Prithviraj alias Prithviraj Singh vs. Pukhrem Sharatchandra Singh [(2017) 2 SCC 487] – The Supreme Court of India. This case noted the difference between the improper acceptance of the nomination of a returned candidate and the improper acceptance of the nomination of any other candidate.
• Association for Democratic Reforms and another vs. Union of India and others [W.P. (C) No. 880 of 2017, decided on 15.02.2024] – The Supreme Court of India. This case affirmed the right of voters to information as essential for choosing a candidate.
• People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and another vs. Union of India and another [(2003) 4 SCC 399] – The Supreme Court of India. This case discussed the right of voters to information.
• Mangani Lal Mandal vs. Bishnu Deo Bhandari [(2012) 3 SCC 314] – The Supreme Court of India. This case held that where a returned candidate is alleged to be guilty of non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or the Act of 1951, it is essential for the election petitioner to aver that the result of the election has been materially affected by such breach.
• L.R. Shivaramagowda and others vs. T.M. Chandrashekar (Dead) by LRs and others [(1999) 1 SCC 666] – The Supreme Court of India. This case pointed out that in order to declare an election void under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act of 1951, it is absolutely necessary for the election petitioner to plead that the result of the election has been materially affected by the alleged non-compliance.
• Sambhu Prasad Sharma vs. Charandas Mahant [(2012) 11 SCC 390] – The Supreme Court of India. This case observed that 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.

Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:

• Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Defines “owner” of a motor vehicle.
• Sections 18 and 19 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930: Deals with the transfer of property in goods.
• Section 33 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951: Deals with presentation of nomination papers.
• Section 36 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951: Governs the scrutiny of nominations.
• Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951: Specifies grounds for declaring an election void.
• Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951: Defines ‘corrupt practices’.

Judgment

The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision, holding that the non-disclosures by Karikho Kri were not substantial enough to invalidate his election. The Court emphasized that not every non-disclosure is fatal and that a distinction must be made between substantial and insubstantial issues. The Court held that the High Court erred in concluding that the non-disclosure of the vehicles amounted to a corrupt practice.

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

Ratio Decidendi

The ratio decidendi of the judgment is that not every non-disclosure of assets by a candidate in an election is a ground to invalidate their win. A distinction must be drawn between substantial and insubstantial issues. The Court emphasized that the success of a winning candidate should not be lightly interfered with. The Court also held that the non-disclosure of assets should not be equated with a corrupt practice unless it amounts to an attempt to unduly influence the voters.

Obiter Dicta

The Court, in its obiter dicta, observed that:

• The right to information of voters is crucial, but this right must be balanced with the principle that elections should not be set aside on trivial grounds.
• The form of the nomination paper is not sacrosanct, and what is to be seen is whether there is substantial compliance with the requirement as to form.
• The Court also reiterated the principle that the success of a winning candidate at an election should not be lightly interfered with.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Karikho Kri clarifies the law on non-disclosure of assets by candidates in elections. It establishes that not all non-disclosures are fatal and that a distinction must be drawn between substantial and insubstantial issues. This judgment is significant for election law and the interpretation of disclosure requirements for candidates. It underscores the importance of the voter’s right to know but also reiterates the principle that elections should not be set aside on trivial grounds. The Court’s decision emphasizes the need for a balanced approach to election disputes, ensuring that the democratic process is upheld while also protecting the integrity of the electoral system.

Flowchart of the Decision