Full Judgment Text
2026 INSC 111
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).11183 OF 2018
K.M. SHAJI APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
M. V. NIKESH KUMAR & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).249 OF 2019
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).1230 OF 2019
J U D G M E N T
NAGARATHNA, J.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.11183 OF 2018:
This civil appeal arises out of impugned order dated
09.11.2018 by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in
Election Petition No.11 of 2016.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the
appellant was the successful candidate in the elections to
the Kerala Legislative Assembly from the (10) Azheekode
Assembly Constituency, held on 16.05.2016. Respondent No.1
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NEETU SACHDEVA
Date: 2026.02.03
10:56:27 IST
Reason:
herein challenged the election before the High Court of
Kerala at Ernakulam through Election Petition No.11 of
1
2016, alleging commission of corrupt practices under
Sections 123(2)(a)(ii), 123(3) and 123(4) of the
Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short, “RP
Act, 1951”).
3. By the impugned order dated 09.11.2018, the High
Court partly allowed the Election Petition, declaring the
election of the appellant void, and setting it aside under
Sections 100(1)(b) and 100(1)(d)(ii) of the RP Act, 1951,
for the commission of corrupt practices under Sections
123(3) and 123(4) of the RP Act, 1951. Further, the High
Court disqualified the appellant from contesting in any
election for a period of six years. Hence, the present
appeal.
4. We have heard learned senior counsel and learned
counsel appearing for the respective parties.
5. The main grievance of the appellant is with regard to
paragraph 2 of the operative portion of the impugned
order. Apart from this, there is a grievance with regard
to the setting aside of the election of the appellant
herein.
2
6. For ease of reference, the operative portion of the
impugned order is extracted as under:
“In the result, the election petition is partly
allowed as follows:-
(1) The election of K.M.Shaji to the (10)
Azheekode Assembly Constituency is declared void
and set aside under Section 100(1)(b) and under
Section 100(1)(d)(ii)of the R.P. Act 1951 for
having committed corrupt practice under Section
123(3) and 123(4) of the R.P. Act 1951.
(2) He is also disqualified from contesting in any
election for a period of six years from today.
This finding of the corrupt practice of the first
respondent shall be forwarded to the President of
India for appropriate action under Section 8A of
the R.P. Act, 1951.
(3) To declare the election of the first
respondent as void for the corrupt practice under
Section 123(2)(a)(ii) of the R.P. Act 1951 is
hereby dismissed.
(4) The grant of further relief to declare M.V.
Nikesh Kumar to have been duly elected is hereby
rejected.
(5) The first respondent K.M. Shaji shall pay a
cost of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner, M.V. Nikesh
Kumar.
The High Court shall intimate the substance of the
decision to the Election Commission and the
Speaker of the Kerala Legislative Assembly and
send a copy of the decision to the Election
Commission forthwith.”
7. On perusal of the same, we note that the election of
the appellant to the (10) Azheekode Assembly Constituency
3
was declared void and set aside by the High Court. The
tenure of office of the appellant as a Member of the
Legislative Assembly was for the period 2016 to 2021. The
said period has lapsed. The appellant however, continued
to participate in the proceedings of the Legislative
Assembly by virtue of the interim order dated 27.11.2018
granted by this Court whereas the impugned order was
passed by the High Court on 09.11.2018.
8. For immediate reference, interim order dated
27.11.2018 is extracted as under:
“Admit.
The appellant shall be allowed to participate in
the proceedings in the Legislative Assembly and
sign the Register but not allowed to Vote as well
as financial benefits.
List the matter in the last week of January, 2019
on a non-miscellaneous day.”
9. It is also brought to our notice that apart from the
period for which the appellant was elected to the
Legislative Assembly from 2016-2021, for the subsequent
term, the appellant was unsuccessful in the election.
However, learned senior counsel submitted that having
regard to Sections 98 and 99 read with Section 8A of the
RP Act, 1951, the High Court could not have issued the
4
direction in Clause 2 of the operative portion of the
impugned order as it is within the powers and jurisdiction
of the President of India to issue such a disqualification
on the basis of the order of the High Court. However, in
the instant case, the High Court itself has disqualified
the appellant herein for a period of six years by which
the powers of the President of India have been exercised
by the High Court, which it could not have done. In the
circumstances, Clause 2 of the operative portion of the
impugned order may be set aside.
10. Learned senior counsel appearing for the contesting
respondent (election petitioner before the High Court)
submitted that having regard to the fact that the
respondent herein was successful in proving the corrupt
practice, the High Court rightly issued such a direction
for disqualification under Sections 123(3) and 123(4) of
the RP Act, 1951 and therefore, the impugned order would
not call for any modification.
11. On a consideration of the respective submissions, we
find that having regard to the specific provisions of the
RP Act, 1951, the power to pass an order of
disqualification rests with the President of India and not
5
with the High Court which has set aside the election of a
successful candidate. Section 8A of the RP Act, 1951 reads
as under:
“8A. Disqualification on ground of corrupt
practices.—(1) The case of every person found
guilty of a corrupt practice by an order under
section 99 shall be submitted, as soon as may be
within a period of three months from the date such
order takes effect, by such authority as the
Central Government may specify in this behalf, to
the President for determination of the question as
to whether such person shall be disqualified and
if so, for what period:
Provided that the period for which any person may
be disqualified under this sub-section shall in no
case exceed six years from the date on which the
order made in relation to him under section 99
takes effect.
(2) Any person who stands disqualified under
section 8A of this Act as it stood immediately
before the commencement of the Election Laws
(Amendment) Act, 1975 (40 of 1975), may, if the
period of such disqualification has not expired,
submit a petition to the President for the removal
of such disqualification for the unexpired portion
of the said period.
(3) Before giving his decision on any question
mentioned in sub-section (1) or on any petition
submitted under subsection (2), the President
shall obtain the opinion of the Election
Commission on such question or petition and shall
act according to such opinion.”
On that short ground alone, Clause 2 of the operative
portion of the impugned order is set aside.
6
12. We have also noted that if the said portion of the
impugned order is set aside, the consideration of the
question as to whether the High Court was justified in
setting aside the election of the appellant would not
remain a live issue as of now, having regard to the fact
that the tenure of office from 2016-2021 has lapsed and
the impugned order setting aside the election of the
appellant would not come in the way of the appellant
contesting elections in accordance with law.
Hence, this Appeal is allowed in part in the
aforesaid terms.
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).249 OF 2019:
13. This civil appeal arises out of impugned order dated
20.12.2016 by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in
Election Petition No. 12 of 2016, filed by respondent No.1
(a voter), challenging the election of the appellant K.M.
Shaji. By impugned order dated 20.12.2016, the High Court
declared the election of the appellant void on account of
the commission of corrupt practices under Sections
123(2)(a)(ii), 123(3) and 123(4) of the RP Act, 1951.
Hence, the present appeal.
7
14. Having regard to the order passed in Civil Appeal
No.11183 of 2018, this appeal also stands disposed of in
the aforesaid terms.
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).1230 OF 2019:
15. This civil appeal arises out of the same impugned
order as in Civil Appeal No.11183 of 2018. This appeal is
filed by the election petitioner, challenging the decision
of the High Court to reject the following reliefs – to
declare that the election of respondent No.1 – K.M. Shaji
was void on account of corrupt practices under Section
123(2)(a)(ii) of the RP Act, 1951, and to declare that the
appellant herein was the duly elected candidate.
16. In view of the aforesaid order passed in Civil Appeal
No.11183 of 2018, the appeal filed by the election
petitioner before the High Court stands disposed of.
………………………………………………………J.
[B.V. NAGARATHNA]
………………………………………………………J.
[UJJAL BHUYAN]
NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 29, 2026
8
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).11183 OF 2018
K.M. SHAJI APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
M. V. NIKESH KUMAR & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).249 OF 2019
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).1230 OF 2019
J U D G M E N T
NAGARATHNA, J.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.11183 OF 2018:
This civil appeal arises out of impugned order dated
09.11.2018 by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in
Election Petition No.11 of 2016.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the
appellant was the successful candidate in the elections to
the Kerala Legislative Assembly from the (10) Azheekode
Assembly Constituency, held on 16.05.2016. Respondent No.1
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NEETU SACHDEVA
Date: 2026.02.03
10:56:27 IST
Reason:
herein challenged the election before the High Court of
Kerala at Ernakulam through Election Petition No.11 of
1
2016, alleging commission of corrupt practices under
Sections 123(2)(a)(ii), 123(3) and 123(4) of the
Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short, “RP
Act, 1951”).
3. By the impugned order dated 09.11.2018, the High
Court partly allowed the Election Petition, declaring the
election of the appellant void, and setting it aside under
Sections 100(1)(b) and 100(1)(d)(ii) of the RP Act, 1951,
for the commission of corrupt practices under Sections
123(3) and 123(4) of the RP Act, 1951. Further, the High
Court disqualified the appellant from contesting in any
election for a period of six years. Hence, the present
appeal.
4. We have heard learned senior counsel and learned
counsel appearing for the respective parties.
5. The main grievance of the appellant is with regard to
paragraph 2 of the operative portion of the impugned
order. Apart from this, there is a grievance with regard
to the setting aside of the election of the appellant
herein.
2
6. For ease of reference, the operative portion of the
impugned order is extracted as under:
“In the result, the election petition is partly
allowed as follows:-
(1) The election of K.M.Shaji to the (10)
Azheekode Assembly Constituency is declared void
and set aside under Section 100(1)(b) and under
Section 100(1)(d)(ii)of the R.P. Act 1951 for
having committed corrupt practice under Section
123(3) and 123(4) of the R.P. Act 1951.
(2) He is also disqualified from contesting in any
election for a period of six years from today.
This finding of the corrupt practice of the first
respondent shall be forwarded to the President of
India for appropriate action under Section 8A of
the R.P. Act, 1951.
(3) To declare the election of the first
respondent as void for the corrupt practice under
Section 123(2)(a)(ii) of the R.P. Act 1951 is
hereby dismissed.
(4) The grant of further relief to declare M.V.
Nikesh Kumar to have been duly elected is hereby
rejected.
(5) The first respondent K.M. Shaji shall pay a
cost of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner, M.V. Nikesh
Kumar.
The High Court shall intimate the substance of the
decision to the Election Commission and the
Speaker of the Kerala Legislative Assembly and
send a copy of the decision to the Election
Commission forthwith.”
7. On perusal of the same, we note that the election of
the appellant to the (10) Azheekode Assembly Constituency
3
was declared void and set aside by the High Court. The
tenure of office of the appellant as a Member of the
Legislative Assembly was for the period 2016 to 2021. The
said period has lapsed. The appellant however, continued
to participate in the proceedings of the Legislative
Assembly by virtue of the interim order dated 27.11.2018
granted by this Court whereas the impugned order was
passed by the High Court on 09.11.2018.
8. For immediate reference, interim order dated
27.11.2018 is extracted as under:
“Admit.
The appellant shall be allowed to participate in
the proceedings in the Legislative Assembly and
sign the Register but not allowed to Vote as well
as financial benefits.
List the matter in the last week of January, 2019
on a non-miscellaneous day.”
9. It is also brought to our notice that apart from the
period for which the appellant was elected to the
Legislative Assembly from 2016-2021, for the subsequent
term, the appellant was unsuccessful in the election.
However, learned senior counsel submitted that having
regard to Sections 98 and 99 read with Section 8A of the
RP Act, 1951, the High Court could not have issued the
4
direction in Clause 2 of the operative portion of the
impugned order as it is within the powers and jurisdiction
of the President of India to issue such a disqualification
on the basis of the order of the High Court. However, in
the instant case, the High Court itself has disqualified
the appellant herein for a period of six years by which
the powers of the President of India have been exercised
by the High Court, which it could not have done. In the
circumstances, Clause 2 of the operative portion of the
impugned order may be set aside.
10. Learned senior counsel appearing for the contesting
respondent (election petitioner before the High Court)
submitted that having regard to the fact that the
respondent herein was successful in proving the corrupt
practice, the High Court rightly issued such a direction
for disqualification under Sections 123(3) and 123(4) of
the RP Act, 1951 and therefore, the impugned order would
not call for any modification.
11. On a consideration of the respective submissions, we
find that having regard to the specific provisions of the
RP Act, 1951, the power to pass an order of
disqualification rests with the President of India and not
5
with the High Court which has set aside the election of a
successful candidate. Section 8A of the RP Act, 1951 reads
as under:
“8A. Disqualification on ground of corrupt
practices.—(1) The case of every person found
guilty of a corrupt practice by an order under
section 99 shall be submitted, as soon as may be
within a period of three months from the date such
order takes effect, by such authority as the
Central Government may specify in this behalf, to
the President for determination of the question as
to whether such person shall be disqualified and
if so, for what period:
Provided that the period for which any person may
be disqualified under this sub-section shall in no
case exceed six years from the date on which the
order made in relation to him under section 99
takes effect.
(2) Any person who stands disqualified under
section 8A of this Act as it stood immediately
before the commencement of the Election Laws
(Amendment) Act, 1975 (40 of 1975), may, if the
period of such disqualification has not expired,
submit a petition to the President for the removal
of such disqualification for the unexpired portion
of the said period.
(3) Before giving his decision on any question
mentioned in sub-section (1) or on any petition
submitted under subsection (2), the President
shall obtain the opinion of the Election
Commission on such question or petition and shall
act according to such opinion.”
On that short ground alone, Clause 2 of the operative
portion of the impugned order is set aside.
6
12. We have also noted that if the said portion of the
impugned order is set aside, the consideration of the
question as to whether the High Court was justified in
setting aside the election of the appellant would not
remain a live issue as of now, having regard to the fact
that the tenure of office from 2016-2021 has lapsed and
the impugned order setting aside the election of the
appellant would not come in the way of the appellant
contesting elections in accordance with law.
Hence, this Appeal is allowed in part in the
aforesaid terms.
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).249 OF 2019:
13. This civil appeal arises out of impugned order dated
20.12.2016 by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in
Election Petition No. 12 of 2016, filed by respondent No.1
(a voter), challenging the election of the appellant K.M.
Shaji. By impugned order dated 20.12.2016, the High Court
declared the election of the appellant void on account of
the commission of corrupt practices under Sections
123(2)(a)(ii), 123(3) and 123(4) of the RP Act, 1951.
Hence, the present appeal.
7
14. Having regard to the order passed in Civil Appeal
No.11183 of 2018, this appeal also stands disposed of in
the aforesaid terms.
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).1230 OF 2019:
15. This civil appeal arises out of the same impugned
order as in Civil Appeal No.11183 of 2018. This appeal is
filed by the election petitioner, challenging the decision
of the High Court to reject the following reliefs – to
declare that the election of respondent No.1 – K.M. Shaji
was void on account of corrupt practices under Section
123(2)(a)(ii) of the RP Act, 1951, and to declare that the
appellant herein was the duly elected candidate.
16. In view of the aforesaid order passed in Civil Appeal
No.11183 of 2018, the appeal filed by the election
petitioner before the High Court stands disposed of.
………………………………………………………J.
[B.V. NAGARATHNA]
………………………………………………………J.
[UJJAL BHUYAN]
NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 29, 2026
8