Yogender Chandolia vs Vishesh Ravi & Ors.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~J-
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Reserved on: 13 April, 2026
th
Pronounced on: 24 April, 2026
+ EL.PET. 10/2020, I.A. 8728/2020 & I.A. 11988/2020
YOGENDER CHANDOLIA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta, Mr.
C.Prakash, Mr. Abhiesumat Gupta,
Ms. Anushree Rawat, Mr. Shrey
Tanwar, Ms. Shreja Saini, Mr.
Abhishek Rana, Mr. T.Parth, Mr.
Rajesh Yadav and Mr. Ankit Verma,
Advs.
versus
VISHESH RAVI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Anupam Srivastava, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Rishikesh Kumar, Ms.
Rohini Prasad, Ms. Ashika Ranjan
and Ms. Samriddhi Srivastava, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR
J U D G M E N T
REPORTABLE
Per DINESH MEHTA, J.
1. The matter has come before us pursuant to a reference that was made
by learned Single Judge while hearing the election petition filed by the
petitioner challenging the election of the respondent, who had been declared
successful from Assembly Constituency-23, Karol Bagh for the general
elections of Legislative Assembly of NCT of Delhi held in the year 2020.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NAVEEN KUMAR
Signing Date:24.04.2026
17:22:17
EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 1 of 15
2. It will not be out of place to reproduce relevant part of reasoning
given by learned Single Judge, while making reference:
“22. In order to attract Section 123(4) of the RP Act is that there has to
be publication by a candidate or his agent or by any other person in
relation to another candidate with the consent of a candidate or his
election agent of any statement of fact which is false and which he either
believes to be false or does not believe to be true in relation to the
personal character or conduct of any candidate or in relation to the
candidature or withdrawal of any candidate being a statement
reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of that candidate's
election. The information given in Form 26, filed along with the
nomination paper, does not come within any of the provisions of Section
123 of the RP Act which is very specific. Corrupt practice is defined in
Section 123 of the RP Act. Corrupt practice does not include furnishing
of false information in Form 26 along with the nomination paper. As
stated in a catena of judgments, charge of corrupt practice is quasi-
criminal in character and if substantiated, it leads not only to the setting
aside of the election of the successful candidate but also disqualifies the
candidate from contesting an election for a certain period. Unless the
allegation does not come directly within the four corners of Section 123
of the RP Act, an election petition alleging corrupt practice under
Section 123 of the RP Act cannot be entertained at all. It is again well
settled that pleadings in election petition has to be specific and precise.
Loose pleadings have no place in election law. This Court is of the
opinion that the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court is based
on purposive interpretation of corrupt practice and to set aside the
election would go against the fundamentals and foundations of election
jurisprudence.
23. In the absence of any amendment to Section 123 of the RP Act
regarding the Affidavit which has now been sought to be furnished in
pursuance to the amendments to the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961,
Section 123 of the RP Act, on the face of it, cannot be attracted.
However, instead of holding the Judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench
of this Court to be per incuriam, more particularly, after the judgment
passed by the Apex Court in Ajmera Shyam (supra), this Court is inclined
to request Hon'ble the Chief Justice to constitute a Larger Bench for
authoritative pronouncement on this aspect.”
3. Before delving into the question so referred, we deem it appropriate to
narrate the facts in brief to the extent necessary. The petitioner instituted a
petition (hereinafter referred to as “Election Petition”) under Section 80
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NAVEEN KUMAR
Signing Date:24.04.2026
17:22:17
EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 2 of 15
read with Sections 100(1)(b) & 100(1)(d) of the Representation of People
Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as “RP Act or the Act of 1951”) and
sought a declaration that the election of the returned candidate i.e.
respondent no.1 from the Assembly Constituency-23 be declared null and
void alleging that he had furnished false and misrepresented facts in the
affidavit and Form 26 submitted alongwith the nomination paper.
4. It has been pleaded in the petition that respondent no.1 has furnished
false information and concealed the material facts regarding his educational
qualification with a view to deceive not only the Returning Officer
(respondent no.13) but also to induce/influence the electorate of the
concerned Assembly Constituency.
5. It is to be noted that in paragraph no.12 of the election petition, the
petitioner has also asserted that respondent no.1 had furnished false affidavit
and Form no.26 along with the nomination paper for the elections held in
2013 & 2015 as well. The allegation regarding nomination paper submitted
for the election of 2020 reads thus:
“…………..(iii). And now for the General Election of AC-23, Karol Bagh
held on 08.02.2020, respondent no.1 has again filled false and mis-
leading averment regarding his educational qualification, which is
contrary to his earlier false education qualification as mentioned in the
earlier elections for the same constituency in the year of 2013 & 2015.
The Form no. 26/affidavit at this time, the respondent no. 1 mentioned his
highest education qualification as class 10th passed from NIOS (National
Institute of Open Schooling) in the year of 2003. On the contrary the
search result of Academic Examination for the years from 1990 to 2019
in respect of respondent no.1, though shown him as enrolled having
enrolment nо. 91771200133 but showing that respondent no. 1 had
enrolled in May 2002 out of aforesaid period of 1990 to 2019, but has
not appeared in the examination of class 10th / Secondary course. Copy
of Academic Examination Result of respondent no. 1, so obtained from
website of NIOS, is attached herewith as Document P-7.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NAVEEN KUMAR
Signing Date:24.04.2026
17:22:17
EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 3 of 15
13. That the aforesaid facts and circumstances regarding the mentioning
of his qualification by respondent no. 1 in his three different Forms no.
26 / affidavits filed by respondent alongwith his nomination papers filed
for the election held in 2013, 2015 & 2020, crystal clear that the
respondent no. 1 has treated this mandatory requirement of filing
education qualification as mere formality. The false facts were mentioned
in above said nomination paper for the general election 2020, which is
matter in issue, with a motive to mislead the electoral / voters of Subject
Assembly Constituency, thereby induced the voters, which materially
affects the result of election in favour of the respondent no. 1, which not
only prejudiced to the petitioner but also to the other contesting
candidates as well as electoral / voters of Subject Assembly Constituency,
who if had the knowledge that the respondent no. 1 is not so educated,
the voters would have not opted to elect the respondent no. 1 or cast their
votes in his favour.”
6. Pertinently, the petitioner has not pleaded the factual narration in the
memo of petition (from Paragraph no.1 to 18) that on what ground and
under which provision the respondent‟s election deserves to be declared null
& void. The grounds raised in the memo of petition reads thus:
“………D. Because the result of the election, in so far as the respondent
no. 1, has been materially affected by the improper acceptance of
nomination, containing false information regarding education
qualification of respondent no. 1 and also by corrupt practices as
mentioned under section 123(4) of Representation of People Act.
F. Because nomination and affidavit / Form no. 26 requires the
candidate to give full details of all education qualifications but the
respondent no. 1 falsely declared that he passed class 10th. But has not
stated about his graduation degree, if any, or other qualification, which
he had projected in his earlier nomination and Affidavit / Form no. 26
for the General Election held in the year of 2013 & 2015.
W. Because the false declaration in the affidavit / form no. 26 regarding
his education qualification of respondent no. 1 amount to corrupt
practice under section 123(4) of RP Act, which influenced the result, or
the electorate due to the fraud and deception, as aforesaid, which
adversely affect the free and true will of the people / voters / electoral of
the area.”
(Emphasis supplied)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NAVEEN KUMAR
Signing Date:24.04.2026
17:22:17
EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 4 of 15
7. Reproduction of the prayer clause of the petition shall also not be out
of place:
“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that keeping in view the facts
and circumstances of the case as mentioned above, this Hon'ble Court
may kindly be pleased to:
i. declare the election of returned candidate /respondent no. 1 from the
Assembly Constituency 23 Karol Bagh, NCT of Delhi held on 08.02.2020
as null and void;
ii. direct the respondent no. 11 to 13 to take steps for prosecution of
respondent no. 1 for the acts of false declaration / affidavit / form no. 26
under section 125A of Representation of People Act, 1951 and other
provisions of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
iii. Consequent whereupon to direct the respondent no. 11 & 12 to
declare the respondent no. 1 as disqualified for the next 6 years, as
enumerated in section 8A of Representation of People Act, 1951.
iv. any other order(s) / direction(s), which this Hon'ble Court deems fit
and proper; in the interest of justice.”
8. As can be gathered from the order of reference, during the course of
hearing of the election petition, the learned Single Judge put a question to
the learned counsel for the petitioner, as to whether the election petition had
become infructuous consequent to holding of fresh assembly elections in the
year 2025? Then, learned counsel for the petitioner responded that non-
disclosure of correct educational qualification constituted corrupt practice as
per Section 123(2) and 123(4) of the Act of 1951 and therefore, the election
petition can't be disposed of as infructuous, because in case the respondent
No.1 is held guilty of corrupt practice, he would be disqualified as provided
under the provisions of the Act of 1951 as noted in paragraph no.3 of the
order of reference dated 13.01.2026.
9. Pursuant to the query so raised, arguments were advanced by the rival
counsel on the issue as to whether the petition has been rendered infructuous
or the proceedings should continue and after recording of the evidence etc.
the petition decided on merit.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NAVEEN KUMAR
Signing Date:24.04.2026
17:22:17
EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 5 of 15
10. Learned Single Judge, thereafter passed the order under consideration,
limiting the issue as to whether non-disclosure of educational qualification
in the affidavit filed by the returned candidate will attract the provisions of
Section 123 of the R.P. Act.
11. In the order of reference passed on 13.01.2026, learned Single Judge
found that the case of Nand Ram Bagri vs. Jai Kishan reported in 2013
SCC Online Del 1826 was not in line with the mandate of Section 123 and
the R.P. Act and is also contrary to the judgment passed by Hon‟ble the
Supreme Court in the case of Ajmera Shyam v. Smt. Kova Laksmi & Ors.
reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1723. Learned Single Judge thus doubted
the correctness of Nand Ram Bagri judgment with the observations as
quoted in paragraph no.2 of this judgment.
12. Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, took the
Court through the nomination paper, more particularly the information
regarding educational qualification and the affidavit and submitted that the
respondent‟s declaration given at the time of furnishing nomination paper in
the election of 2013 so also during the election of 2020 were incorrect,
rather false and the same were given in order to influence the voters and
change the result in his favour.
13. Per contra, Mr. Srivastava learned senior counsel for the Respondent
No.1 contended that the election should not be set aside lightly, as the will
of the masses should be respected. Moreover, he relied on the judgment of
Hon‟ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of M.J. Jacob vs. A.
Narayanan and Ors. (Civil Appeal 3611/2008) to buttress his contention
that the election cannot be set aside, until the ingredients of Section 123(4)
are found existing. He further submitted that the petitioner herein has failed
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NAVEEN KUMAR
Signing Date:24.04.2026
17:22:17
EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 6 of 15
to point out that the ingredients of the aforesaid section are present in the
case.
14. The learned senior counsel stated that the petitioner has solely relied
upon Section 123(4) of the RP Act and not on Section 123(2) in the
pleadings, while alleging corrupt practice by the Respondent No. 1. He
argued that the judgment of Nand Ram Bagri (supra) would not apply. He
took the Court through the affidavit filed by the petitioner along with the
petition to show that the petitioner has placed reliance on sub section (4) of
Section 123 of the RP Act and argued that the case of the petitioner has to be
tested on the anvil of the said Section (123(4) of the RP Act). It will not be
out of place to reproduce the relevant paragraphs of the petitioner‟s
affidavit:
“(i) That the statements made in paragraphs 8, 12, 13 and Grounds of
the accompanying election petition about the commission of the corrupt
practice of section 123(4) of Representation of People Act, 1951, and
particulars of such corrupt practice mentioned in paragraphs 8, 12, 13
and Grounds of the same petition are true to my knowledge.
(ii) That the statements made in paragraphs 8, 12, 13 and Grounds of the
said petition about the commission of the corrupt practice of section
123(4) of Representation of People Act, 1951 and the particulars of such
corrupt practice given in paragraphs 8, 12, 13 and Grounds of the said
petition are true to my information.”
15. Learned counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder arguments submitted
that in the case of Nand Ram Bagri (supra) , the single judge of this Court
had interpreted the expression „statement of fact which is false‟ in relation to
the personal character or conduct of any candidate to include the
statement/information published by the candidate with respect to his own
self. He argued that the present case attracts Section 123(4) as the
respondent No. 1 filled wrong particulars and he is liable for consequence
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NAVEEN KUMAR
Signing Date:24.04.2026
17:22:17
EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 7 of 15
for having indulged in a corrupt practice.
16. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
17. The limited issue before us is, as to whether consequent to holding of
fresh election, the election petition before the learned Single Judge has been
rendered infructuous or it deserves to be decided on its merit. We do not
wish to dilate upon the petitioner‟s contention that the declaration made by
the respondent in relation to his educational qualification in the
corresponding affidavit and documents were false and forged.
18. The reason for not entering into this question is not far to seek. If this
issue is to be decided, then, the same is to be decided by the High Court. For
the purpose of deciding whether the petition has been rendered infructuous,
we have to proceed with the presumption that the petitioner has a triable and
arguable case. However, the question as to whether the case should be put to
trial or not, is the moot question.
19. For this purpose, the petitioner's own pleadings become relevant. A
perusal of the petitioner‟s pleadings and the tenor of allegation shows that
the petitioner has premised his case on Section 123(4), which deals with
publication and not on Section 123(2) which stipulates “an undue
influence”.
20. According to us, when the edifice of the petitioner's case is not undue
influence, then he can neither rely upon the provision of Section 123(2) nor
can the judgment of the Court in the case of Nand Ram Bagri (supra) be
held applicable. Because the case of Nand Ram Bagri (supra) and the
pleadings therein made reference of both the Sections- Section 123(2) and
123(4) of the RP Act.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NAVEEN KUMAR
Signing Date:24.04.2026
17:22:17
EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 8 of 15
21. Upon consideration of the applicable statutory provision, we find that
sub-section (4) talks of the publication by a candidate or his agent of any
statement of fact which is false or believed to be false about the personal
character or conduct of any candidate, being a statement reasonably
calculated to prejudice the prospects of that candidate's election.
22. A simple reading of sub-section (4) suggests that sub-section (4) of
Section 123 has four ingredients:-
(i) There should be a publication by a candidate.
(ii) Such publication should be false or has been made believing it to be
false or believing it not to be true.
(iii) Such publication should be in relation to personal character or
conduct of any candidate.
(iv) Such a statement should be intended to prejudice the prospects of that
candidate's election
23. If the aforesaid four components of sub-section (4) are taken together,
there remains not even an iota of doubt that the purported false allegation
should be made regarding any candidate other than the person making such
publication and such publication should be intended to prejudice the
prospects of such candidate or a candidate other than the one making such
aspersions.
24. According to us, learned Single Judge has rightly observed that to fall
foul to sub-section (4), the purported false statement should be made with
respect to any candidate other than the election petitioner himself and such
statements should be intended to prejudice the result or prospects of that
candidate. Expression „any person‟ and „that person‟ as posited makes is
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NAVEEN KUMAR
Signing Date:24.04.2026
17:22:17
EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 9 of 15
abundantly clear that in case some publication is made about himself it will
not be covered under sub-Section (4) of Section 123.
25. The allegations levelled by the petitioner, even if assumed to be
correct are to the effect that the respondent no.1 has made false assertions
about his educational qualification so as to influence the election in his
favour, whereas sub-section (4) clearly provides that such allegation should
be made to prejudice the prospects of that candidate's election i.e. election of
the opposite candidate, qua whom false assertion has been made/published.
26. Firstly, by no stretch of imagination, a candidate can/would level
allegation against himself, that too with a view to prejudice his own
prospects. The use of expression “in relation to personal character or
conduct of any candidate” so also, the expression “reasonably calculated to
prejudice the prospects” and expression „that candidate's election‟ leaves no
room for doubt that the assertion made by the petitioner, even if taken to be
at its face value, cannot be brought within the sweep and scope of sub-
section (4).
27. The petitioner's allegation qua respondent no.1 may or may not fall
within the scope of sub-section (2), but according to us, neither we nor can
the High Court (learned Single Judge) resort to the provision of sub-section
(2), as the same has not been pressed into service.
28. It is a settled position of law that the election of a returned candidate
cannot be interfered with on casual and perfunctory pleadings. In absence of
specific pleading and reference to Section, which is alleged to be breached,
the High Court cannot suo moto , venture into the exercise of finding relevant
and applicable provision for the petitioner so as to unsettle the mandate of
the masses.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NAVEEN KUMAR
Signing Date:24.04.2026
17:22:17
EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 10 of 15
29. In this regard, we would like to make a reference of Section 83 of the
Act of 1951, which enjoins upon the election petitioner to set forth full
particulars of any corrupt practice. According to us, in order to show the
petitioner‟s allegation qua respondent no.1, it will be incumbent upon the
election petitioner to assert as to how the incorrect particulars of educational
qualification amounted to corrupt practice, while clearly mentioning the
particulars of the provision.
30. A perusal of the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in the
case of Nand Ram Bagri (supra) , alongside corresponding judgment dated
26.08.2013 passed by Hon‟ble Supreme Court (Civil Appeal no. 6790/2013)
makes it abundantly apparent that in the case of Nand Ram Bagri ( supra ),
leaves no room for ambiguity that the case as setup by the Election
petitioner therein was as to whether non-disclosure of correct educational
qualification constitutes corrupt practice as per Section 123(2) & 123(4) of
the RP Act?
31. Since the petitioner has only resorted to the provision of Sub-section
(4) of the RP Act [instead of Section 123(2) & Section 123(4) of the RP Act
as in Nand Ram Bagri (supra) ], we are of the considered view that the case
of Nand Ram Bagri ( supra ) is not applicable, in the present case. The
petitioner‟s case as framed cannot continue any further, because, the
allegation of corrupt practice is with respect to the educational qualification
of the respondent No.1 himself, which does not fall foul to the provision
encapsulated in sub-section (4) of Section 123 of the RP Act. This court and
Hon‟ble the Supreme Court in case of Nand Ram Bagri (supra) were
examining the impact of wrong declaration about educational qualification
under Sub-section (2) of Section 123 of the Act of 1951.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NAVEEN KUMAR
Signing Date:24.04.2026
17:22:17
EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 11 of 15
32. As per the law existed by such time, more particularly in the light of
the judgment of Hon‟ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Union
of India vs. Association for Democratic Reforms reported in (2002) 5 SCC
294 , this Court and Hon‟ble the Supreme Court took a serious view of the
false declaration regarding educational qualification, considering that false
declaration qua the educational qualification may lead to influence the
voters in favour of a declarant or a candidate.
33. But if the subsequent judgment of Hon‟ble the Supreme Court in the
case of Ajmera Shyam (supra) is considered, even this position of law has
significantly changed.
34. It would not be out of place to reproduce the conclusion drawn by
Hon‟ble the Supreme Court in the case of Ajmera Shyam (supra):
“11. CONCLUSION
11.1 Judicial intervention in election disputes concerning disclosure of
information, as discussed above, was prompted by the quest for
sanitising the electoral process by eliminating polluting elements by
making candidates' criminal antecedents public. Aiming to prevent
criminals from participating in elections to maintain purity of the
electoral process — essential for the proper functioning of parliamentary
democracy — the court was compelled to exercise its extraordinary
power to issue specific directions. Consequently, not only disclosure of
criminal antecedents, but also related obligations to disclose assets,
liabilities, and educational qualifications of election candidates became
mandatory. The knowledge of the criminal antecedents, assets and
educational qualifications of the candidates by voters certainly
invigorates the electoral process, which is ensured by obligatory
disclosure by the candidate. However, the Court has made a subtle
distinction between non-disclosure of criminal antecedents and that of
assets and educational qualifications. While disclosure of criminal
antecedents in the electoral process was the most critical element to
maintain the purity of the electoral process which has to be scrupulously
adhered to, disclosure of assets and educational qualifications were
considered as attending supplementary requirements to strengthen the
electoral process, of which there will be certain scope for consideration
as to whether it is of substantial or inconsequential nature.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NAVEEN KUMAR
Signing Date:24.04.2026
17:22:17
EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 12 of 15
In the light of the above, this disclosure requirement as far as assets and
educational qualification is concerned, should not be unreasonably
stretched to invalidate an otherwise validly declared election over minor
technical non-compliances that are not of substantial character, and
should not be the basis for nullification of the people’s mandate.
11.2 In the light of the legal position exposited, on examination of the
facts in the peculiar background obtaining in the case, we hold that the
nondisclosure of income in the income tax return for four financial years
by Respondent No.1, is not a defect of substantial character. Therefore,
the nomination could not have been rejected under Section 36(2) of the
Representation of the People Act, 1951 as contended by the Appellant
and hence, no illegality was committed by the Returning Officer in
accepting the nomination of the Respondent No.1. Resultantly the penal
clause cannot be invoked to invalidate Respondent No.1's election under
Section 100(1)(d)(i) of the Act on the ground that the nomination of
Respondent No.1 was improperly accepted.
11.3 As we have held that the defect of nondisclosure mentioned is not of
a substantial nature, for the same reason the Respondent No.1 cannot be
considered to have indulged in a corrupt practice within the meaning of
Section 123 (2) of the Act, and thus, the election of Respondent No.1
cannot be rendered void under Section 100(1)(b) of the Act.
11.4 Consequently, on the same consideration, it cannot be also said that
the Respondent No.1 did not comply with the relevant provisions of the
Act or any rule or order made under the Act, to attract the provisions of
Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act.
11.5 Furthermore, we also hold that the allegation that the Respondent
No.1 did not disclose the income from honorarium she received as the
Chairperson of Zilla Parishad, or that she did not disclose receiving ex-
MLA pension—cannot be considered to have been proved or established,
nor these are of any material consequences.”
35. Further, according to us, the expression “publication” used in sub-
section 4 also has its own significance. The expression “publication” as
defined by Black‟s Law Dictionary means „to make public; to make known
to people in general; to bring before public; to exhibit, display, disclose or
reveal.”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NAVEEN KUMAR
Signing Date:24.04.2026
17:22:17
EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 13 of 15
36. According to us, a declaration given in a nomination form and
affidavit would not amount to „publication‟ by itself.
37. Viewed from any angle, the allegation against the Respondent no.1,
does not constitute the corrupt practice within the meaning of sub-section 4
of Section 123 of the Act, and since the assertions do not fall within the
parameters of corrupt practice, as defined in Section 123, question of
disqualification upto 6 years, as given in Section 8A of RP Act does not
arise at all.
38. We are firmly of the view that while deciding an election petition, the
High Court is bound by the letter of law and there is no scope of extended
meaning or purposive interpretations. The High Court while deciding an
election petition, as a Court or as a Tribunal, cannot traverse beyond the
plain language.
39. We, therefore, hold that the case of Nand Ram Bagri (supra) has no
bearing on the present set of facts, as the petitioner‟s case is confined to
Section123(4) of the RP Act, whereas the Nand Ram Bagri‟s case was more
particularly under Sections 123(2), though Section 123(4) of the Act of 1951
was also under consideration.
40. We also hold that the allegation of furnishing false declaration and
documents in relation to educational qualification of the candidate
himself/herself does not constitute a corrupt practice within the meaning of
sub Section (4) of Section 123 of the Act of 1951. And the judgment
rendered in Nand Ram Bagri (supra) to the extent it holds that wrong
mentioning or incorrect statement given in the nomination form is corrupt
practice within meaning of Section 123(4) is not good law.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NAVEEN KUMAR
Signing Date:24.04.2026
17:22:17
EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 14 of 15
41. According to us, even if the case is tried and the allegations are found
to be correct, then also, the Respondent no.1 cannot be held guilty of corrupt
practice in light of the pleadings made. Since the term of the Assembly is
over and fresh elections have been held in the year 2025, the election
petition is liable to be declared infructuous.
42. Reference answered accordingly.
43. A copy of this order be placed in the record of election petition
No.10/2020. And the election petition be listed on 30.04.2026 for passing
appropriate order in light of the reference answered.
DINESH MEHTA
(JUDGE)
VINOD KUMAR
(JUDGE)
April 24, 2026/ nk
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NAVEEN KUMAR
Signing Date:24.04.2026
17:22:17
EL.PET. 10/2020 Page 15 of 15