Ramniwas Rawat vs Mukesh Malhotra
- Court
- Madhya Pradesh High Court
- Decided on
- 09-03-2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
1 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
IN THE HIGH
H COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
HON'BLE S
TION PETITION No. 24 of 2024
ELECTI
RAMNIWAS RAWAT
Versus
SH MALHOTRA AND OTHERS
MUKES
Appearance:
Shri M.P.S.Raghuvan
nshi, Senior Advocate with Shri Sanjay D
wivedi, Shri
Sankalp Sharma, Shri Nipu
un Saxena, Shri Dharmendra Dwivedi,
Ms.Sonam
Mittal, Mohd. Amir Khan,
, Shri Manish Singh Gurjar, Ms.Deep
pali Dabas,
Ms.Aadya Pandey, Ms. Tan
nya Agrawal, Shri Dev Nagar, Ms.Namr
rata Tomar,
Shri Joyjeet Kumar Das, Shr
ri Harshit Raghuvanshi - Advocates for p
petitioners.
Shri Vivek K. Tankh
ha, Senior Advocate with Shri PratipVis
soriya, Shri
Siddhant Gupta, Shri Inde
er Dev Singh, Shri Abhishek Singh Cha
auhan, Shri
Vishesh Dwivedi and Ms.Ay
yushi Sharma - Advocates for respondent
No.1.
Shri Ravindra Sharma
a - Advocate for respondents No.2,3, 5 to
o 9.
Shri Navnidhi Parhar
rya - Advocate for respondent No.4.
Shri Priyanshu Yadav
v - Advocate for respondent No.10.
_______________________
___________________________________
__________
Res
served on : 26.02.2026
Pro
nounced on : 09.03.2026
_______________________
___________________________________
__________
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
2 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
JUDGMENT
1. This Election Petitio
on under Section 80/81 of Representa
ation of the
People Act has been filed se
eeking the following reliefs:
It is, therefore, humbly
pleased to allow this
following relief to the p
y prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kin
ndly be
o grant
petition and may further be pleased to
petitioner :
(i) The Hon’ble C
election of respondent
vide election certificate
(ii) The Hon’ble C
duly elected from Asse
(iii) Any other suita
fit in the fact and circum
(iv) Cost of petition
Court may kindly be pleased to decla
are the
Vijaypur
no.1 from Assembly Constituency 02 V
e dated 23-11-2024 (Annexure P/11) is vo
Court may further declare that the petiti
oid;
ioner is
embly Constituency 02 Vijaypur;
able direction which this Hon’ble Court
mstances of the case may kindly be passe
n may kindly be awarded.
t deems
ed ;
2. The facts necessary f
for disposal of present election petition
in short are
that Election Petitioner wa
as the Member of Legislative Assemb
ly (in short
MLA) for the terms of 199
90-93, 1993-1998, 2003-2008, 2008-2013
3 and 2013-
2018. Election Commission
n of India (in short ECI) issued Press N
Note dated 9-
10-2023 thereby notifying
and declaring the General Election of
f Legislative
Assemblies of Madhya Pra
adesh. The Election Petitioner contest
ted the said
election on the ticket of Ind
dian National Congress and was declared
d elected for
th
the 16 Assembly of the
e State of M.P. from Assembly Cons
stituency 02
Vijaypur, Distt. Sheopur.
Thereafter, the Election Petitioner su
ubmitted his
resignation and joined Bh
hartiya Janta Party, as a result the se
eat of MLA
Assembly Constituency 02
Vijaypur, Distt. Sheopur fell vacant. A
Accordingly,
ECI vide its Press Note date
ed 15-10-2024 declared bye-election for t
the said seat.
The date of Polling was 12-
-11-2024 and date of Counting was 23-11
1-2024. The
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
3 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
Election Petitioner filed his
nomination for Assembly Constituency 0
02 Vijaypur,
Distt. Sheopur on the tick
ket of BJP, whereas the respondent n
no.1/Mukesh
Malhotra also submitted his
s nomination paper on the ticket of Indi
ian National
Congress. The other respon
ndents also submitted their nomination p
papers. The
respondent no.1/Mukesh M
Malhotra was declared elected and ce
ertificate of
election was issued to him.
3. The present Election
Petition has been filed mainly on the gr
round that in
the affidavit which is to be f
filled in as per form 26, was not complet
tely filled up
by the respondent no.1/M
Mukesh Malhotra and vital informa
ations were
suppressed. Total 6 crim
minal cases were registered against the
e respondent
no.1/Mukesh Malhotra but h
he disclosed incomplete information abou
ut two cases
only. The Election Peti
itioner has bifurcated the information
n given by
respondent no.1/Mukesh M
Malhotra in respect of his criminal ca
ases in two
categories which are as unde
er :
Group 1 : Cases which ar
them :
re disclosed but without giving full de
etails about
(i) Case registered
for crime under Secti
pending in the Court of
(ii) Case registered
for crime No. 341,323
JMFC, Sheopur in RCT
d in Police Station Karahal at crime no.
2/2022
case is
ion 323,294,506,and 34 of IPC. The
f JMFC, Sheopur in RCT No. 972/2022;
d in Police Station Karahal at crime no. 9
3,294,506 and 34 of IPC and is pending
93/2023
before
T No. 1051/2023.
(a) It is the case of the E
Election Petitioner that the respondent n
no.1/Mukesh
Malhotra did not disclose
in his affidavit that charges in RCT N
o. 972/2022
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
4 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
were already framed on 14-
12-2022 and gave a false information tha
at no charges
have been framed.
(b) Similarly in respect o
of crime no. 93/2023/RCT No. 1051 of 2
2023, a false
information was given that
no charges have been framed whereas c
charges were
already framed on 17-10-20
23.
Group 2 : Criminal cases
which were not disclosed at all
(i) Forest Crime
respondent no.1/Muk
26(1)(a)(g),66(i) of In
no.1/Mukesh Malhotra
passed by CJM, Sheop
with fine of Rs. 7,000/-
No. 32773/2014 was registered again
kesh Malhotra for crime under S
nst the
Sections
dian Forest Act. In this case, the resp
a was convicted vide judgment dated 28-
pondent
-2-2020
pur in case no. 601022/2014 and was pu
unished
h.
- with default imprisonment of one month
(ii) Crime No. 32
no.1/Mukesh Malhotra
Sections 323,294,332,2
30-6-2015 passed by J
was convicted under S
for 6 month’s RI and fi
days.
2/2011 was registered against the resp
pondent
e under
nt dated
a in Police Station Karahal for offence
252, and 186 of IPC and vide judgmen
JMFC, Sheopur in RCT No. 1407 of 20
Sections 332 and 294 of IPC and was sen
011, he
ntenced
nt of 15
ine of Rs. 500/- with default imprisonmen
(iii) Crime no. 2/20
offence under Sections
2013, the said case wa
157/2013, but that fact
(iv) Crime No. 2/20
offence under Section
Malhotra was acquitted
013 was registered at Police Station Kara
ahal, for
s 323,294 of IPC and by judgment dated
30-11-
CT No.
as disposed of by JMFC, Sheopur in RC
was not disclosed.
020 was registered at Police Station Kara
ahal, for
505(2) of IPC. The respondent no.1/M
d by Judgment dated 11-3-2023.
Mukesh
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
5 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
4. Thus, it is the case
e of the Election Petitioner, that the
respondent
no.1/Mukesh Malhotra did n
not disclose his criminal antecedents in cl
lause 6 and
did not disclose complete i
information in clause 5 of his affidavit f
filed under
form 26, and thus withheld v
vital informations from electorate which
amounts to
corrupt practice in terms o
of provisions of Section 100(1)(b) and
123(2) of
Representation of the People
e Act.
5. It is also the case of
the Election Petitioner that he got 46.95
5% of total
votes whereas the responden
nt no.1/Mukesh Malhotra got 50.66% of
f total votes
and the remaining contestin
ng candidates got 2.39% of total votes (e
each of the
respondents no. 2 to 10 got e
even less than 1% of total votes).
6. The respondent no.1/
/Mukesh Malhotra filed an application u
under Order
7 Rule 11 CPC which was
dismissed by this Court by order dated
23-4-2025
which reads as under :
“Heard on I.A. No.222
8/2025 and IA.No.2527/2025.
IA. No.2527/2025 :
2. It is submitted
was sent along with the
of Section 81(3) of Re
does not contain the
endorsement by the
counsel has relied upon
of Dr. (Smt.) Shipra
AIR 1996 SC 1691 . I
judgment passed in th
Wagh and others repo
did not contain endors
attesting officer and if
of verification etc. is su
argument, then defect
by counsel for petitioner that the copy
e notice is not in conformity with the pro
epresentation of People Act, 1951. The p
e impression of seal, name, affirmatio
y which
ovisions
petition
on and
notary. To buttress his submission,
n judgment passed by Supreme Court in t
learned
the case
orted in
etc. Vs. Shanti LalKhoiwal etc. repo
It is further submitted that Supreme Co
he case of Anil R. Deshmukh Vs. On
ourt by
kar N.
f notice
l of the
rsement
stage of
orted in AIR 1999 SC 732 has held that if
sement of attestation and stamp of seal
true copies of affidavit containing endor
upplied at a later stage i.e. long before s
t in non-supply of true copy is curable
e. It is
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
6 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
further submitted that
by Constitutional Benc
Vs. C. Poulose and ot
that both the judgment
of the respective cases
which was sent does
therefore, the only con
under Section 86 of R
submitted that later o
supplied a copy of ele
official website of the H
endorsement made by
officer which clearly
24.03.2025 was not th
presented on 30.12.202
the defect. It is furthe
copy was supplied to
supplied to any of the o
since the election peti
successful candidate
necessary party and a
accordingly, relied upo
of Smt. SahodrabaiR
reported in AIR 1968
and others reported
Yadav Vs. Dharampa
2565 .
thereafter both the judgments were con
ch of Supreme Court in the case of T.M.
nsidered
. Jacob
nd held
mstances
thers reported in AIR 1999 SC 1359 an
ts are correct under the facts and circum
s. Thus, it is submitted that the copy of
f notice
not contain any impression of notari
nsequence is the dismissal of Election P
Representation of People Act. Furthermor
ial act,
Petition
re, it is
ner has
rom the
on, on 24.03.2025, the election petition
ection petition which was downloaded fr
High Court “ERP”. This notice also conta
ains the
esenting
the Judicial Registrar as well as the pre
means that the copy which was suppl
he true copy of the election petition whi
lied on
ich was
not cure
24 and accordingly, the said copy cann
er submitted that even otherwise, the co
orrected
the returned candidate only and no cop
other contesting respondents. It is submitt
py was
ted that
ared as
tes are
petition,
itioner has also sought that he be decla
therefore all the contesting candidat
are entitled to true copy of election p
on the judgments of Supreme Court in th
he case
Rai Vs. Ram Singh Aharwar and
others
Handa
SC 1079, M. Karunanidhi Vs. H.V.
in AIR 1983 SC 558 and Mulayam
al Yadav and others reported in AIR 20
Singh
001 SC
I.A. No.2228/2025 :
3. It is submitted b
action has arisen and a
dismissed under Order
filed on solitary groun
submitted by counsel
Representation of Peo
where the trial is pend
person has been convic
required to be disclosed
was punished for less t
by counsel for respondent No.1 that no c
accordingly the election petition is liabl
r VII Rule 11 CPC. Election Petition ha
nd of suppression of criminal antecedent
cause of
le to be
as been
ts. It is
3 A of
for respondent No.1 that Section 33
ople Act requires that only those cases
ding and charges have been framed (ii) w
i.e. (i)
where a
cted for more than one year's RI are mand
datorily
d. However, in two cases the returned can
ndidate
Section
than one year, therefore, in the light of S
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
7 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
33 A of Representation
the corrupt practice. S
against the returned ca
in the affidavit. It is su
those two criminal cas
gksrk ” but that declaratio
had suppressed the p
submitted that there is
disclosure or incorrec
affected the result of
support of corrupt pr
prescribed under the R
petitioner has also no
affidavit. To buttress
has relied upon the ju
case of C.P. John Vs
AIR 2015 SC 16 , Kan
& Others reported in
Tayang and another r
Barbhuiya Vs. Aminu
4 S.C.R. 523 , Ravi Na
in AIROnline 2022 S
T.M. Chandrashekar
submitted that materia
the judgments passed
SCC 233, Anil Va
Shigaonkar reported i
Vs. Janmeja Singh an
n of People Act, non-disclosure would no
ot invite
So far as other two cases which are p
andidate are concerned, the same were di
pending
sclosed
ption of
ubmitted that although in front of descrip
ses, returned candidate had mentioned “ y
ykxw ugha
pondent
on by itself would not mean that the resp
pendency of two criminal cases. It is
further
at non-
aterially
s no averment in the election petition th
ct disclosure of criminal cases has ma
f election. Furthermore the affidavit f
filed in
orm 25
ractice is not in accordance with Fo
Representation of People Act and the e
ot disclosed the source of information
election
in his
ndidate
t in the
orted in
his contention, counsel for returned can
udgments passed by the Supreme Court
s. Babu M. Palissery and Others repo
nimozhi Karunanidhi Vs. A. Santhana K
Kumar
[2023] 4 S.C.R. 798 , Karikho Kri Vs.
reported in [2024] 4 S.C.R. 394 , Karim
ul Haque Laskar & Others reported in
amboothiri Vs. K.A. Baiju and others re
Nuney
Uddin
[2024]
eported
etc. Vs.
SC 883 and L.R. Shivaramagowda e
etc. reported in AIR 1999 SC 252 . It is
al facts have not been pleaded and relie
further
ed upon
by the Supreme Court in the case of (2
asudev Salgaonkar Vs. Naresh K
in 2009 AIR SCW 6812 and Ravinder
nd others reported in AIR 2000 SC 3026
2001) 8
Kushali
r Singh
.
4. Per contra, bot
counsel for election pet
th the applications are vehemently oppo
osed by
titioner.
5. So far as the
Section 81(3) of Rep
submitted by counsel f
the case of T. Phungza
in (2001) 8 SCC 358
respondent does not b
name of the notary, wo
petition as long as the
compliance/non-compliance of provisi
resentation of People Act is concerned
for election petitioner that the Supreme C
ions of
d, it is
Court in
athang Vs. Hangkhanlian and others re
8 has held that even if the copy supp
bear the endorsement of affirmation or
eported
plied to
seal or
election
ould not be fatal requiring dismissal of e
original affidavit is in accordance with l
law. So
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
8 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
far as the contention ra
the lack of material fac
election petitioner that
sufficient to hold that
practices. Furthermore,
in the election petition
when the general publ
cases, then they were s
election petitioner and
corrupt practice played
the election result. I
“materially affected” h
not mean that the p
suppression of criminal
only facts are to be
submitted that it is fo
material available on re
as required under Secti
aised by counsel for respondent No.1 as r
ct is concerned, it is submitted by counsel
regards
l for the
suppression of criminal antecedents by i
t the returned candidate was guilty of
itself is
corrupt
pleaded
eclared,
criminal
, the election petitioner has specifically p
n that immediately after the result was de
lic came to know about pendency of c
shocked and the margin of votes received
d by the
the returned candidate was only 7,000/-
d by returned candidate has materially a
and the
affected
It is submitted that merely because
have not been used in the election petition
words
n would
ffect of
pleadings made in respect of the eff
l antecedents can be ignored. It is submitt
ted that
e, it is
ther the
n or not
pleaded and not the law. Furthermore
or the High Court to decide as to whet
ecord has materially affected the election
ion 100(1) of Representation of People A
ct.
6. Heard learned c
counsel for the parties.
7. The Supreme C
has held as under:
Court in the case of T. Phungzathang (
(supra)
17. In the above-de
in hand, we notice
contesting responde
Election Case No. 3
not contain the ver
Commissioner or the
and Rule 94-A of th
the case of Respond
with the election p
verification or affirm
that such affirmatio
affidavit filed befor
arising in this appeal
respondent in his p
election petition und
law laid down in Jac
eclared legal position, if we examine the
e that the only lacuna pointed out by
case
y the
neous
m did
nt in his application in Civil Miscellan
of 2000 is that the copy supplied to him
rification or affirmation made by the
Oath
m 25
e prescribed authority as required in Form
he Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961. It i
s not
along
dent 1 that the original affidavit filed a
petition in Form 25 did not contain
mation. On the contrary, it is an admitted
on or verification was made in the orig
such
d fact
ginal
re the High Court. Therefore, the que
l is: would this omission as pointed out by
petition, ipso facto entail dismissal of
der Section 86(1) of the Act? In view o
cob case [(1999) 4 SCC 274] the answer
stion
y the
f the
f the
then
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
9 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
should be “no” beca
not cease to be a “t
prudent person being
or being prejudiced
omissions are only c
ause by such omission the copy supplied
d will
true copy” and there is no possibility of
f any
mself
g in any manner misled in defending him
d in the defence of his case. Further,
curable irregularities.
such
18. In this appeal,
of the omission poin
on 6-6-2000, a few
supplied fresh copie
as found in the origin
down in the case of
held that the defect
have been cured.
it is also to be noted that on coming to k
nted out by the respondent, the appellant
w days before the starting of the argum
know
had,
ments
es of the affidavit containing the verifica
ation
s laid
nal affidavit in its entirety, hence, as was
f Deshmukh [(1999) 2 SCC 205] it shoul
ld be
rable,
ts pointed out in the petition being cur
19. Having come t
appeal are fully cove
this Court in Jacob c
[(1999) 2 SCC 205
Harcharan Singh Jo
this case bearing in
case also to dismiss
case [(1997) 10 SCC
down in DrShipra ca
Jacob case [(1999)
application of the p
SCC 181] is confin
thereby that it is a
affidavit filed before
not to copies of t
Therefore, it is cle
DrShipra case [(199
[(1997) 10 SCC 294
matter, the decision
contrary to Jacob ca
construed as a good
the instant case cou
SCC 294] to dismiss
to the conclusion that the facts of the pre
esent
nts of
ered by the Constitution Bench judgmen
case [(1999) 4 SCC 274] and Deshmukh
5] we will now discuss the applicabilit
case
ty of
cts of
n this
sh case [(1997) 10 SCC 294] to the fac
mind that the High Court has relied on
s the election petition. It is true that in
Josh
e laid
C 294] this Court extended the principle
ase [(1996) 5 SCC 181] but then this Cou
urt in
4 SCC 274] in clear terms held that
principle found in DrShipra case [(199
ned only to the facts of that case; mea
applicable only in cases where the orig
t the
96) 5
aning
ginal
s and
dents.
e the High Court contained the omissions
the affidavit supplied to the respond
ear that the application of the principl
le in
96) 5 SCC 181] to the facts of Josh
4] is clearly impermissible. In that view o
case
of the
n in Josh case [(1997) 10 SCC 294] b
being
ase [(1999) 4 SCC 274] the same canno
ot be
urt in
7) 10
law any more. Therefore, the High Cou
uld not have relied on Josh case [(1997
s the election petition.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
10 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
20. Before we conc
support of his argum
effect that assumin
respondent in the c
incurable defect, ev
been dismissed in
substantial grounds q
of Respondent 1. In
express any opinion
on the main contenti
clude, we must note that the appellant ha
ad in
o the
ment raised an additional contention to
ng that irregularities pointed out by
copy of the affidavit supplied to him i
ven then the election petition could not
the
is an
have
other
avour
its entirety because it had raised o
questioning the declaration of result in fa
n our opinion, it is not necessary for u
n on this issue because of the view expre
us to
essed
ion argued in this appeal.
21. For the reasons
same is allowed. Th
and the matter is rem
election petition on m
s stated above, this appeal succeeds and
he impugned judgment and order is set a
d the
aside
of the
manded to the High Court for disposal o
merits. No costs.
R.C. LAHOTI, J. (
with the order propo
J. and place on reco
conclusion arrived
additional reasons in
Brother.
concurring)— I am in respectful agreem
osed by my learned Brother N. SantoshHe
ment
egde,
g and
ord my concurrence with the reasoning
at by him. However, I propose to as
n support of the view taken by my lea
ssign
arned
23. The relevant fa
provisions of law q
recap of the facts an
to this opinion of m
the election petition
election of Respond
by Respondent 1 and
of corrupt practice,
election of the return
is signed and verified
the Code of Civil Pr
petition is accompan
proviso to sub-sectio
the People Act, 1951
Conduct of Election
affidavit so filed has
and bears, to that e
acts have been succinctly stated and rele
quoted by my learned Brother, yet a q
nd relevant statutory provisions, as a prol
mine, would be in order. It is undisputed
evant
quick
ogue
d that
n filed by the appellant, putting in issue
e the
actice
ent 1, alleges commission of corrupt pra
d also pleads grounds other than commis
ssion
g the
in support of the relief for declaring
ned candidate to be void. The election pet
tition
wn in
d by the petitioner in the manner laid dow
rocedure for the verification of pleadings.
nied by an affidavit in Form 25 as require
. The
ed by
on of
of the
on (1) of Section 83 of the Representatio
1 (hereinafter “the Act”) and Rule 94-A o
ns Rules, 1961 (hereinafter “the Rules”).
The
Oaths
s been sworn before a Commissioner of O
effect, an endorsement, signature and ru
ubber
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
11 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
stamp of the Oath
deponent in the man
also not disputed tha
election petition at t
Respondent 1 along
all respects exceptin
Commissioner attest
deponent before him
appear on the copy o
of election petition t
was filed by Respon
Judge under Section
the election petition
election petition was
as to the alleged co
grievance was raised
not in conformity w
was prejudiced in h
was filed by Respon
Soon on receipt of
petitioner out of the
delivered another se
which had the end
Commissioner as it w
the application came
Election Judge. How
non-compliance with
81(3) and hence the
Section 86(1) of the
h Commissioner administering oath to
nner and form contemplated by Form 25.
o the
It is
d the
ed to
ete in
at the set of the copies which accompanied
the time of filing and which was delivere
g with the writ of summons was comple
ng that the endorsement made by the
ting the affidavit to have been sworn by
m, his signature and rubber stamp do
of the affidavit delivered along with the
Oath
y the
o not
copy
ation
ction
sal of
n the
o Respondent 1. On 22-5-2000 an applica
dent 1 before the learned Designated Elec
s 83 and 86 of the Act calling for dismiss
n on the ground that the verification on
s defective and material facts and particu
ulars
in no
rrupt practice were not given but therei
d that the copy delivered to Respondent 1
with the original and, therefore, Responde
was
ent 1
his defence. On 5-6-2000 another applica
ation
aken.
n the
ndent 1 wherein such an objection was ta
the copy of the application, served on
court, the counsel for the election petiti
et of copies of election petition with affid
ioner
davit
dorsement and rubber stamp of the
Oath
efore
nated
was on the original and this was done be
e up for hearing before the learned Design
wever, the learned Judge felt that there
was
ction
under
h Section 83(1)(c) proviso read with Sec
e petition was liable to be dismissed u
Act.
24. Section 83(1)
plead material facts s
practice and to be
manner laid down in
verification of plead
requires that where t
petition shall also
prescribed form in
practice and the part
of the Act requires an election petitio
setting forth full particulars of alleged cor
signed by the petitioner and verified in
n the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 fo
dings. The proviso enacted to sub-section
on to
rrupt
n the
r the
n (1)
e, the
the petitioner alleges any corrupt practice
be accompanied by an affidavit in
support of the allegation of such cor
ticulars thereof. Rule 94-A (introduced b
the
rrupt
by an
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
12 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
amendment in the
affidavit referred to i
shall be sworn befor
or a Commissioner
appended to the Rule
solemn affirmation o
of corrupt practice
distinctly stating to
and to what extent th
prescribes the follo
signature of the depo
Rules w.e.f. 27-2-1962) requires tha
in the proviso to sub-section (1) of Sectio
re a Magistrate of the First Class or a No
at an
on 83
otary
m 25
of Oaths and shall be in Form 25. Form
es requires the election petitioner to verif
or oath the statements about the commis
fy on
ssion
actice
and the particulars of such corrupt pra
what extent they are true to his knowl
hey are true to his information. The form
ledge
m also
owing endorsement to appear below
onent on affidavit:
the
“Solemnly affirmed/
of …, 19….
/sworn by Shri/Shrimati … at … this …
… day
Before m
me,
Magistrate of the First Class/No
otary
ths.”
/Commissioner of Oat
The requirement of
prescribed form”. An
whom the affidavit i
the section. Rule 94
affidavit shall be in
Magistrate of the Fi
Oaths. What is pres
before one of the
swearing in the affid
the form of affidavit
Act and the Rules
deponent of the affi
with Rule 94-A and
consistency, the ma
Magistrate, Notary o
to the deponent.
administering oath t
affidavit. Preparing,
the deponent; admin
Section 83(1) proviso is of an “affidav
n endorsement by the specified officer be
is sworn is not the requirement mentione
4-A can be dissected into two parts: (i)
vit in
efore
ed in
) the
ore a
Form 25, and (ii) it shall be sworn befo
irst Class or a Notary or a Commissione
scribed is the form of affidavit. Swearin
er of
ng in
er of
ate to
three officers is the mode and manne
davit. The latter requirement does not rela
t; it prescribes the persons recognised by
s as competent to administer oath to
y the
o the
idavit for the purposes of Section 83(1)
d suggests, for the sake of convenience
read
e and
y the
anner of endorsement to be made by
or Commissioner of Oaths administering
oath
fficer
Such endorsement made by the of
to the deponent is not an integral part o
f the
cts of
signing and swearing an affidavit are ac
nistering oath and making an endorseme
nt in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
13 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
proof thereof on the
the oath.
affidavit are acts of the officer administe
ering
25. In T.M. Jacob
Constitution Bench
two Constitution Be
v. Roop Singh Ratho
and Ch. Subbarao v
1027 : (1964) 6 SCR
the principles laid do
In T.M. Jacob case
petition delivered to
the verification of th
and Form 25 was c
copy was objected t
compliance with the
The case was placed
for reconsidering the
Shanti LalKhoiwal
Constitution Bench
decision of the Cour
SCC 205] The law l
summed up as under
b v. C. Poulose [(1999) 4 SCC 274]
] the
er by
has reaffirmed the law as stated earlie
enches in MurarkaRadheyShyam Ram Ku
umar
ore [AIR 1964 SC 1545 : (1964) 3 SCR
v. Member, Election Tribunal [AIR 1964
573]
4 SC
R 213] and has also explained and expan
own by the two earlier Constitution Benc
e [(1999) 4 SCC 274] copy of the elec
o the contesting respondent did not show
nded
ches.
ction
w that
he Notary Public required as per Rule 9
contained in the original and, therefore
94-A
, the
to as being defective and amounting to
e requirements of Section 81(3) of the
non-
Act.
cally
d before the Constitution Bench specifi
e three-Judge Bench decision in DrShip
[(1996) 5 SCC 181] and while doing so
ra v.
o the
also noticed another later three-Judge B
rt in Anil R. Deshmukh v. Onkar N. [(199
ench
99) 2
ay be
laid down by the Constitution Bench ma
r:
(i) The object of serv
the affidavit filed in
of the respondent
respondent to under
effectively meet the
defence. The require
p. 290, para 35)
ving a “true copy” of an election petition
n and
actice
e the
support of the allegations of corrupt pra
in the election petition is to enable
rstand the charge against him so that he
e can
re his
(SCC
same in the written statement and prepar
ement is of substance and not of form. (
(ii) The test to deter
was to find out wh
calculated to mislead
rmine whether a copy was a true one or
hether any variation from the original
d a reasonable person. (SCC p. 288, para
r not
was
33)
(iii) The word “copy
means a copy so
misunderstand it. (SC
y” does not mean an absolutely exact cop
py. It
true that nobody can by any possib
CC p. 289, para 34)
bility
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
14 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
(iv) Substantial comp
the petition could n
86(1) where there
requirements of Sect
mpliance with Section 81(3) was sufficient
t and
ction
h the
not be dismissed, in limine, under Sec
had been substantial compliance with
tion 81(3) of the Act. (SCC p. 289, para 3
34)
(v) There is a dis
requirement of Sec
compliance with the
proviso to Section
supply of true cop
considered to be fat
copy on account of
and the copy supplie
the respondent in s
Section 81(3) read
consequence would n
83 of the Act. (SCC
tinction between non-compliance with
ction 81(3) and Section 83. A substa
e requirements of Section 81(3) read with
h the
antial
h the
n the
83(1) of the Act is enough. Defects in
py under Section 81 of the Act may
y be
y the
tal, where the party has been misled by
variation of a material nature in the orig
ed to the respondent. The prejudice cause
ginal
ed to
ns of
such cases would attract the provision
with Section 86(1) of the Act. The s
not follow from non-compliance with Sec
same
ction
p. 291, para 37)
(vi) The argument th
purely statutory pr
commonly understo
importing the doctr
86(1) read with Sect
has to be repelled. (S
hat since proceedings in election petition
ns are
roceedings and not civil proceedings
ood, there is no room for invoking
s as
and
ction
d and
rine of substantial compliance into Sec
tion 81(3) of the Act, cannot be accepted
SCC p. 291, para 38)
(vii) It is only the v
attract the applicatio
expounded in Mur
(1964) 3 SCR 573]
(1964) 6 SCR 213]
Section 83 of the Ac
the doctrine of curab
of Civil Procedure.
Sections 83(1) and 8
violation of Section 81 of the Act which
on of the doctrine of substantial complianc
h can
ce as
rarkaRadheyShyam [AIR 1964 SC 15
45 :
027 :
] and Ch. Subbarao [AIR 1964 SC 10
] cases. The defect of the type provide
ct, on the other hand, can be dealt with u
bility, on the principles contained in the C
ed in
under
Code
me of
This clearly emerges from the schem
86(5) of the Act. (SCC p. 291, para 38)
(viii) A certain am
impermissible devi
dismissal of an elec
an insignificant vari
a fatal defect. It is,
mount of flexibility is envisaged. Whil
e an
iation from the original may entail
the
Act,
ed as
tion petition under Section 86(1) of the
ation in the true copy cannot be construe
, however, neither desirable nor possib
le to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
15 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
catalogue the defects
or those which are
circumstances of eac
prescribed. The test
[AIR 1964 SC 1545
now well settled. (SC
s which may be classified as of a vital na
ature
s and
an be
not so. It would depend upon the facts
ch case and no hard and fast formula ca
ts suggested in MurarkaRadheyShyam
case
d are
: (1964) 3 SCR 573] are sound tests and
CC p. 292, para 40)
26. Dr. Shipra ca
doubted and distingu
205] which also is
decisions were plac
Jacob case [(1999) 4
181] the Constitutio
1964 SC 1027 : (19
[AIR 1964 SC 1545
to, vide para 10, but
SCC 274] the Const
taken in DrShipra ca
the fact situation of
general application.
case [(1999) 2 SCC
the affidavit delive
endorsement of atte
officer found on the
endorsement, it was
copy and was attest
election petitioner. A
later on furnished t
substantial complian
election petition wa
Harcharan Singh Jo
defect in the copy of
the same as is in the
Court, solely by rel
held that the electi
limine. In DrShipra
Josh [(1997) 10 SCC
this Court has held th
substantial complian
ase [(1996) 5 SCC 181] was referred
d to,
uished in Anil R. Deshmukh [(1999) 2
SCC
these
a three-Judge Bench decision. Both t
ced before the Constitution Bench in T
4 SCC 274] . In DrShipra case [(1996) 5
T.M.
SCC
[AIR
hyam
on Bench decisions in Ch. Subbarao [
964) 6 SCR 213] and MurarkaRadheySh
: (1964) 3 SCR 573] have been just refe
t not dealt with. In T.M. Jacob case [(199
erred
99) 4
titution Bench has clearly held that the v
ase [(1996) 5 SCC 181] must be confine
f that case and cannot be considered to b
view
ed to
be of
mukh
The statement of law in Anil R. Deshm
205] has been approved wherein the cop
ered to the respondent did not bear
estation or the seal or stamp of the atte
py of
r the
sting
tarial
xerox
e original. But for the absence of the not
a true copy of the original as it was a x
ed as “true copy” under the signature o
A copy along with notarial endorsement
to the respondent. Applying the theorie
nce and of curability this Court held tha
f the
t was
es of
at the
as not liable to be dismissed in limine
osh v. HariKishan [(1997) 10 SCC 294]
e. In
] the
t was
f the affidavit supplied to the respondent
e present case and a three-Judge Bench of
f this
lying on DrShipra case [(1996) 5 SCC
181]
ed in
Singh
ion petition was liable to be dismisse
a [(1996) 5 SCC 181] and Harcharan S
C 294] — both three-Judge Bench decis
ions,
ept of
he defect to be not curable and the conce
nce having no application in such a cas
e. In
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
16 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
MurarkaRadheyShya
573] and T.M. Jaco
Benches have held
substantial complian
which the decision
Harcharan Singh Jo
counter to the view
the Constitution Ben
181] and Harcharan
to be good law.
am case [AIR 1964 SC 1545 : (1964) 3
SCR
ution
b case [(1999) 4 SCC 274] the Constitu
such a defect to be curable and the te
nce to be applicable. The very premis
ns in DrShipra [(1996) 5 SCC 181]
st of
e on
and
runs
ew of
sh [(1997) 10 SCC 294] proceed, thus,
taken by the Constitution Bench. In vie
nch decisions, DrShipra case [(1996) 5
SCC
cease
Singh Josh case [(1997) 10 SCC 294] c
8. Thus, it is clear
supplied to respondent
endorsement and affirm
not invite dismissal
Representation of Peop
already supplied the tr
On 24.03.2025, the foll
r that if the copy of election petition whi
ts did not contain the impression of seal,
ich was
, name,
f would
mation by the notary, then that by itself
of election petition under Section
ple Act. Furthermore, the election petition
rue copy of the election petition on 24.03
86 of
ner had
3.2025.
lowing order was passed:
“Shri Dwivedi
granted one week's
2228/2025 and 2229/20
counsel for election petitioner prays for
time to file reply to I.A. Nos.2233
025.
r and is
3/2025,
At this stage, it
to supply fresh atteste
respondent No.1 and a
PratipVisoriya. The fac
petition is kept open
hearing. Specifically w
other respondent(s) has
t is submitted by Shri Dwivedi that he i
ed copy of election petition to the coun
accordingly, a copy of same is supplied
s ready
nsel for
to Shri
election
ct of belated supply of attested copy of e
and shall be considered on the next d
when no copy of attested election petition
date of
n to any
s been supplied.
Now, the petiti
set of attested copies of
ioners are not permitted to supply the add
ditional
f election petition to any other respondent
ts.
List this case on
n 01.04.2025.”
9. Thus, it is cle
concerned, the true cop
as non-supply of the tru
it is true that in the ligh
every candidate is a ne
ear that so far as the returned candi
py of the election petition was supplied.
ue copies to the other respondents is con
ht of relief sought by election petitioner,
ecessary party, but in view of the fact that
date is
. So far
ncerned,
each &
t defect
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
17 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
is curable, therefore, t
complete set of true c
hearing.
the election petitioner is directed to su
copy of the election petition by next d
upply a
date of
10. Under these cir
that election petition ca
of notice which was s
impression of seal, nam
the notary.
rcumstances, this Court is of considered o
opinion
he copy
tain the
ation by
annot be dismissed on the ground that th
served on the respondents did not cont
me of notary or endorsement of affirma
11. Accordingly , I
IA. No.2527/2025 is hereby rejected .
12. So far as que
concerned, counsel for
address this Court wit
mentioning words “ ykx
were disclosed by him
an inadvertent mistak
explanation could be su
why the words “
ykxw u
criminal cases which w
the interpretation and
appreciation of eviden
application filed under
made out a case thereb
election petition triable
stion of non-disclosure of cause of ac
r respondent/returned candidate was dire
ction is
ected to
th regard to intention of returned candi
xw ugha gksrk ” in front of two criminal cases
m in the affidavit. Except submitting that
idate in
s which
t it was
ate, no
ate as to
etails of
ke on the part of returned candida
ubmitted by counsel for returned candida
” were mentioned in front of de
ugha gksrk
were pending against returned candidate
d meaning of words “ ykxw ugha gksrk ”
e. Since
require
oses of
oner has
nce, thus, it is clear that for the purpo
Order VII Rule 11 CPC, election petitio
by disclosing cause of action which ma
e.
kes the
13. So far as the la
election petitioner in
pleaded the material
affected” have not been
said that the material fa
to mention here that o
Section 100(1) of Rep
for the High Court to g
materially affected the
decide that suppression
of the election or not
election petitioner ha
necessary for trial of
ack of material facts is concerned, it is cle
ear that
ion has
aterially
paragraph 16 to 21 of election petiti
facts. Merely because the words “ma
n mentioned in the election petition, it can
acts have not been disclosed because it is
nnot be
suffice
he law.
ndatory
tice has
Court to
only facts are to be pleaded and not th
presentation of People Act makes it man
give a finding as to whether corrupt pract
result or not. Thus, it is for the High C
n had any material effect on the result/ou
utcome
urt, the
ich are
. In the considered opinion of this Cou
as pleaded all the material facts whi
f election petition. Furthermore, the Su
upreme
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
18 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
Court in the case of
reported in (2021) 10
Democratic Reforms
Public Interest Foun
another reported in (20
Liberties And Anothe
(2013) 10 SCC 1 has r
as well as contesting c
because it is the righ
antecedents of the con
even the Election Com
political parties as we
antecedents of contesti
relied upon by respon
regard to complete in
candidate stand on a
requirement for every
pendency of all the cr
Court is of considere
contains material facts
cause of action.
Brajesh Singh Vs. Sunil Arora and
SCC 241 , Union of India Vs. Associat
others
ion for
and another reported in (2002) 5 SC
ndation and others Vs. Union of Ind
C 294 ,
dia and
019) 3 SCC 224 and People's Union Fo
er Vs. Union of India and Another repo
or Civil
orted in
repeatedly held that it is for the political
candidates to disclose their criminal antec
parties
cedents
criminal
ht of the voter to know about the c
ntesting candidate. Furthermore, on 18.0
03.2024
equiring
criminal
mmission has also issued guidelines re
ell as their candidates to disclose the c
ing candidates. Thus, the judgments whic
ch were
act with
dent to show that the suppression of fa
ncome or number of vehicles of the re
a different footing but it is the man
eturned
ndatory
ose the
contesting candidate to honestly disclo
riminal cases. Under these circumstanc
ed opinion that not only the election p
es, this
petition
iscloses
s for trial of election petition but also di
14. Accordingly, I.
.A. No.2228/2025 is also hereby rejected
d .
15. At this stage,
Advocate, that he has a
of the additional true co
, it is submitted by Shri Sarvesh S
also filed an objection with regard to non-
Sharma,
-supply
opy of the election petition.
16. Since this Cou
copy of notices which
occasion is the su
Representation of Peop
Sarvesh Sharma, Advo
urt has already come to a conclusion t
that the
e earlier
were supplied to the respondents on the
ufficient compliance of Section 81(
(3) of
by Shri
ple Act, accordingly, the objection filed b
cate, is hereby rejected.
17. Respondents ar
statement.”
re granted two weeks' time to file their
written
7. The respondent no.1
/Mukesh Malhotra filed SLP (c) No.
19112-
19113/2025 which was dism
missed by Supreme Court by order dated
d 22-7-
2025.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
19 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
8. Thereafter, the respo
ondent no.1/Mukesh Malhotra filed his
written
statement and admitted th
at all the six criminal cases were reg
gistered
against him. In respect of
criminal cases mentioned as Group 1 c
cases, it
was stated by respondent no
o.1/Mukesh Malhotra as under :
“T hat, so far as Gro
Representation of peo
Section 33A(1)(i) man
pending case where im
been prescribed and ch
in his nomination for
mentioned the name o
also made description
details, because of not
has been violated nor
been affected. Answer
nomination form, mi
prescribed in the form
the right of voters or an
oup 1 case is concerned under Sectio
ople Act right to information has been
on 33A
given,
ose this
ndates that the candidates shall disclo
mprisonment for 1 years or more than 1 y
earshas
pondent
nd also
harges have been framed. Answering resp
rm has mentioned these two cases an
f the Court where these cases are pendi
n of the offence but has not mentioned
ing and
d other
t mentioning of other details neither the
statute
nt have
s in the
voters right to know criminal anteceden
ing respondent has disclosed these cases
istake occurred in the manner and m
method
ot affect
which is directory in nature and does no
nyone and it is the procedural lapse.”
9. So far as cases mentio
oned in Group 2 is concerned, it was the
stand of the
respondent no.1/Mukesh M
Malhotra that in forest offence he was c
convicted by
Trial Court, however, in th
he light of Section 33-A of Representa
ation of the
People Act, it was not requi
ired to be disclosed in affidavit under for
rm 26 as the
conviction was less than
1 year. So far as the conviction of
f respondent
no.1/Mukesh Malhotra in R
RCT No. 1047/2011 is concerned, it was
set aside in
appeal and ultimately the re
espondent no.1/Mukesh Malhotra was ac
cquitted. In
the remaining two cases, he
was acquitted therefore, in the light of S
Section 33-A
of Representation of the Peo
ople Act, he was not under obligation to
disclose the
same in his affidavit filed i
n form 26. It is further submitted that t
the bonafide
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
20 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
mistake has occurred on ac
ccount of illiteracy and lack of legal aw
wareness and
pleaded as under :
That, in reply as to par
Group 2 cases are con
disclose thesecases. It
has made any suppr
procedural lapses occ
improper advice.It is
answeringrespondent b
away from civilization
intention to conceal th
proceduralwithout any
at all benefited by the a
ra-9 of the petition, it issubmitted that so
ncerned,answering respondent is not requ
o far as
uired to
pondent
is specifically denied that answeringresp
ression in order to getany benefits.
curredbecause of lack of legal awaren
Some
ness or
s not out of place to mention her
belongs to Sahariya tribe who are still far
re that
rand far
n and literacy rate is verylow but there
he facts ofcriminal record, the lapses are
was no
e purely
malafide intention. Answering responden
aforesaid lapse.
ntis not
10. The other respondents
s also filed their written statement, thereb
by indirectly
supporting the respondent no
o.1/Mukesh Malhotra.
11. The Election Petitione
er examined following witnesses in his su
upport :
S.No. Name of Witness
1. Ram Niwas Rawat
Bhupendra Singh
2.
Witness No.
t P.W.1
P.W.2
The respondent no.1/Mukes
support :
h Malhotra examined following witnesse
es in his
S.No. Name of Witness
1. Mukesh Malhotra
2. BachhanBihari
Harish Dubey
3.
4. Sanat Kumar Jain
5. Chander Singh Sis
Witness No.
D.W.1
D.W.2
D.W.3
D.W.4
sodia D.W.5
The respondent no. 4, Smt. M
ManjuAdivasi, examined herself as a witn
ness :
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
21 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
S.No. Name of Witness
1. Manju Adivasi
Witness No.
D.W.6
The respondent no. 10 Ram
Singh Jatav examined himself as a witne
ess :
S.No. Name of Witness
Ram Singh Jatav
1.
Witness No.
D.W.7
12. The following docu
uments were proved and exhibited b
by Election
Petitioner :
S.No. Ex.
Document
Prov
ved by
P.
1 1 Press Note d
Election Com
2 2 Press Note d
Election Com
3 3 Nomination
dated 9-10-2023 issued by
Adm
both
dated15-10-2024 issued by
mitted by
mmission of India
parties
mitted by
Adm
both
Paper of Mukesh Malhotra Adm
both
ated 28-2-2020 passed by C.J.M.,
RCT No. 1022/2014
mmission of India
parties
mitted by
parties
mitted by
4 Judgment da
4
Sheopur in R
5 5 Judgment da
J.M.F.C., Sh
6 6 FIR in crime
Station Kara
7 Result
7
Adm
both
ated 30-6-2015 passed by
heopur in RCT No. 1407/2011
parties
mitted by
Adm
both
e No. 2/13 registered at Police
ahal, Distt. Sheopur
parties
mitted by
Adm
both
Adm
both
rtificate Adm
both
e No. 2/2022 registered at Police
ahal, Distt. Sheopur
parties
mitted by
parties
mitted by
8 8 Election Cer
parties
mitted by
9 9 FIR in crime
Station Kara
10 10 Denial of ch
Adm
both
harges in RCT No. 972/2022 Adm
both
e No. 93/2023 registered at Police
ahal, Distt. Sheopur
parties
mitted by
parties
mitted by
11 10A FIR in crime
Station Kara
11 Charges in R
12
Adm
both
RCT No. 972/2022 Adm
both
parties
mitted by
parties
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
22 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
13 12 Charges in R
RCT No. 1051/2023 Adm
both
e No. 2/2020 registered at Police
ahal, Distt. Sheopur
mitted by
parties
W.1
13 FIR in crime
14
Station Kara
15 14 News Paper
16 15 News Paper
16 News Paper
17
18 17 News Paper
19 18 News Paper
2024 of Nav
20 19 News Paper
2024 of Nav
21 20 News Paper
2024 of Nav
22 21 News Paper
23 22 News Paper
24 23 News Paper
13. The Following docum
D.W
Aacharan dated 8-11-2024 D.W
Aacharan dated 6-11-2024 D.W
Aacharan dated 7-11-2024 D.W
Aacharan dated 8-11-2024 D.W
Circulation Sheet dated 6-11-
v Bharat
W.1
W.2
W.2
W.2
W.3
D.W
Circulation Sheet dated 7-11-
v Bharat
D.W
W.3
Circulation Sheet dated 8-11-
v Bharat
D.W
W.3
Nav Bharat dated 7-11-2024 D.W
Nav Bharat dated 8-11-2024 D.W
Nav Bharat dated 6-11-2024 D.W
W.3
W.3
W.3
ments were proved and exhibited by respo
ondent No.1
/Mukesh Malhotra :
S.No. Ex. D Document
1 1 Notice to a
2 2 Reply to N
3 3 Affidavit in
4 4 Judgement
A.S.J., She
5 5 Register of
6 6 Judgment d
J.M.F.C., S
7 7 News Pape
8 8 News Pape
9 9 News Pape
10 10 News Pape
11 News Pape
11
12 12 Compact D
t Prov
admit documents P.W.
Notice to Admit Documents P.W.
n form 26 P.W.
nd
t dated 17-6-2016 passed by 2
eopur in Cr.A. No. 400051/2015
ved by
1
1
1
1
P.W.
f criminal cases P.W.
dated 11-3-2023 passed by
Sheopur in RCT No. 546 of 21
1
1
P.W.
er Nav Bharat dated 7-11-2024 P.W.
er Aacharan dated 6-11-2024 P.W.
er Aacharan dated 7-11-2024 P.W.
er Nav Bharat dated 8-11-2024 P.W.
er Nav Bharat dated 6-11-2024 P.W.
Disc P.W.
1
1
1
1
1
1
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
23 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
13 13 News Pape
2024
14 News Pape
14
2024
15 15 News Pape
2024
16 16 News Pape
2024
17 17 News Pape
18 18 News Pape
19 19 News Pape
2024
20 Photograph
20
21 21 Photograph
22 22 Letter date
Electoral O
23 Letter date
23
Electoral O
24 24 Letter date
Commissio
25 25 Order date
Lok Adalat
26 26 F.I.R. in cr
Police Stat
27 27 Circulation
28 28 Circulation
11-2024
29 29 Circulation
11-2024
30 Bank Acco
30
31 31 News Pape
2024
32 32 News Pape
2024
er Pradesh Watch dated 7-11- P.W.
1
er Pradesh Watch dated 9-11- P.W.
1
er Pradesh Watch dated 11-11- P.W.
1
er Express News dated 27-10- P.W.
1
er Express News dated 7-11-2024 P.W.
er Express News dated 9-11-2024 P.W.
er Express News dated 11-11- P.W.
1
1
1
h P.W.2
h P.W.2
ed 7-3-2024 issued by Chief
Officer, Delhi
2
2
itted by
Admi
both p
ed 7-3-2024 issued by Chief
Officer, Delhi
parties
itted by
Admi
both p
ed 6-3-2024 issued by Election
parties
itted by
Admi
both p
d 13-9-2025 passed by National
t
on of India
parties
.1
D.W.
rime No. 93 of 2023 registered at
tion Karahal, Distt. Sheopur
D.W.
.1
n Sheet of News Paper Aacharan D.W.
n Sheet of Pradesh Watch of 11- D.W.
. 2
.5
n Sheet of Pradesh Watch of 7- D.W.
.5
ount of Pradesh Watch D.W.
er Pradesh Watch dated 11-11- D.W.
.5
.5
er Pradesh Watch dated 7-11- D.W.
.5
14. As already pointed ou
ut, the controversy in the present case li
es in a very
compass i.e., whether inco
omplete disclosure of criminal cases m
mentioned in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
24 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
Group 1 cases and non di
isclosure of criminal cases mentioned in
n Group II
cases amount to corrupt prac
ctice or not ?
15. Challenging the Elec
ction of the respondent no.1/Mukesh Ma
alhotra, it is
submitted by Counsel for E
Election Petitioner, that it is the fundamen
ntal right of
every electorate to know ab
bout the criminal antecedents of the candi
idate. Even
otherwise, an incorrect inf
formation was given in affidavit that o
only Verbal
altercation ( eqagokn ) had ta
aken place.The respondent no.1/Mukes
h Malhotra
deliberately did not disclos
e that Charges in two cases have been
framed and
deliberately mentioned “not
t applicable”. Not only important infor
rmation was
suppressed by the responde
ent no.1/Mukesh Malhotra, but informati
ion was got
published in those news pa
apers which had either no circulation o
r very poor
circulation in Assembly Con
nstituency 02 Vijaypur. Thus, every effor
rt was made
to keep the electorate in d
dark. Further more, the respondent n
no.1/Mukesh
Malhotra himself had admit
tted in his cross-examination that trees are
e worshiped
by the residents of Vijay
ypur Assembly Constituency and the
respondent
no.1/Mukesh Malhotra was
s convicted for illegally cutting 210 tr
rees. Non-
disclosure of fact that he wa
as convicted for the said offence cannot b
be said to be
a bonafide mistake and th
he offence in question involved mora
al turpitude.
Further the respondent n
no.1/Mukesh Malhotra was also being
g tried for
assaulting women also and
d said fact was also suppressed. The pr
rovisions of
Section 33A of Representat
tion of the People Act is a mandatory pr
rovision. It
was further submitted that S
Section 33B of Representation of the Peo
ple Act was
struck down in Judgment p
passed in the case of PUCL Vs. Unio
on of India
reported in (2003) 4 SCC
C 399 . Thus, it is submitted that the
respondent
no.1/Mukesh Malhotra is g
guilty of corrupt practice and also relie
ed upon the
judgments passed by Supr
reme Court in the case of Union of
f India Vs.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
25 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
Association for Democra
atic Reforms reported in (2002) 5
SCC 294,
Krishnamoorthy Vs. Siva
a Kumar reported in (2015) 3 SC 4
467, Public
Interest Foundation and o
others Vs. Union of India and another
r reported in
(2019) 3 SCC 224, Satish U
Ukey Vs. Devendra Gangadharrao Fa
adnavis and
another reported in (2019)
) 9 SCC 1, Poonam Vs. Dule Singh
and others
reported in 2025 INSC 12
284, Ajmera Shyam Vs Kova Laxmi
and others
reported in 2025 SCC O
OnLine 1723 (SC), Sushil Kumar S
Singhal Vs.
Regional Manager, Punja
ab National Bank reported in (2010) 8
8 SCC 573,
State Bank of India and o
thers Vs. P. Soupramaniane reported i
n (2019) 18
SC 135, Mangali Vs. Ch
hakki Lal reported in AIR 1963 All 5
527, Arjun
Panditrao Khotkar Vs. K
Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and othe
ers reported
in (2020) 7 SCC1, and Lok
k Prahari Vs. Union of India reported
in (2018) 4
SCC 699.
16. Per contra, it is sub
bmitted by Counsel for respondent n
no.1/Mukesh
Malhotra, that provision of
f Section 33A of Representation of the
People Act
was substantially complied
with. The respondent no.1/Mukesh M
Malhotra had
explained in his cross exam
mination that the mistake has occurred b
because the
person who was filling up th
he nomination paper and the affidavit as
per form 26
did not think it proper to d
o so. So far as non-disclosure of crimin
nal cases as
mentioned in Group II cas
ses is concerned, the conviction of the
respondent
no.1/Mukesh Malhotra was
less than 1 year, therefore, in the light of
f Section 33-
A of Representation of the
People Act, it was not necessary for the
e respondent
no.1/Mukesh Malhotra to di
isclose the same. So far as incomplete d
disclosure of
criminal cases as mentioned
d in Group I is concerned, the Court must
t find out its
impact on the society and un
nless and until the suppression is so monu
umental, the
hard fought election of the r
respondent no.1/Mukesh Malhotra, shoul
ld not be set
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
26 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
aside. It is submitted that th
he lapses on the part of the respondent n
no.1/Mukesh
Malhotra are of trivial in n
ature and should not be given undue im
mportance as
claimed by the Election Pe
etitioner, and relied upon the judgments
s passed by
Supreme Court in the case
e of Ajmer Shyam Vs. Kova Laxmi
and others
reported in 2025 SCC On
Line SC 1723, Vashist Narain Sharm
ma Vs. Dev
Chandra and others repor
rted in (1954) 2 SCC 32, Shiv Charan
n Singh Vs.
ChndraBhan Singh reporte
ed in (1988) 2 SCC 12, Thakur Sen Ne
egi Vs. Dev
Raj Negi and another rep
ported in 1993 Supp (3) SCC 645 an
d Judgment
passed by Madhya Pradesh H
High Court in the case of Ram gareb an
nd other Vs.
Ajay Arjun Singh passed
in EP No. 6/2024 decided on 22-8-2024
4 as well as
Judgment passed by Patna H
High Court in the case of Bhamshanker C
Choudhary
Vs. Bhudeo Chaudhary
and others decided on 27-2-2025 in
n E.P. No.
17/2000. It is not out of
place to mention here that although
respondent
no.1/Mukesh Malhotra has g
given a compilation containing other judg
gments also,
but they were not cited.
17. Although the Counse
el for the other respondents were present
t at the time
of arguments, but none of th
hem argued the case.
18. Heard the learned C
Counsel for the Election Petitioner and
respondent
no.1/Mukesh Malhotra.
19. First of all, this Court
t would like to consider the evidence of S
Smt. Manju
Adivasi (D.W.6). Smt. M
Manju Adivasi (D.W.6) is respondent no
o. 4. In an
affidavit filed in support of
her written statement, she had disclosed
the name of
her husband as Narayan Ad
divasi, but at the time of recording of he
er evidence,
She disclosed the name of h
her husband as Raju. When She was aske
ed to clarify
then She stated She was
asked by Counsel to sign a pre-prepa
ared written
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
27 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
statement and neither it was
read out to her nor She was allowed to re
ead it is out.
Thus, it is clear that what
tever written statement was filed by S
Smt. Manju
Adivasi, was not her versio
n, but She was merely asked by her cou
unsel to sign
the pre-prepared written sta
atement and neither She was allowed to r
read out the
same nor the said written s
statement was read out to her. This con
nduct of her
Counsel cannot be appreci
ated. The written statement is the ver
rsion of the
litigating party and the Cou
unsel should not file a written statement
t which was
prepared by him without a
any instructions or information from th
he litigating
party. Thus, the conduct o
f the Counsel for the respondent no. 4,
Smt. Manju
Adivasi is hereby deprecated
d.
20. Ram Singh Jatav (D
D.W.7) is the respondent no. 10. In exa
amination in
chief, he merely mentioned
d that he had received the notice of t
the Election
Petition and had filed his
written statement through his Counsel
l. In cross
examination he stated that h
he is M.A. (Social Science), but thereafte
er he started
feeling giddiness and was al
lso not in a position to stand and accordin
ngly, he was
given up by his Counsel.
21. Thus, the respondents
s no. 4 and 10 who appeared as a witne
ess were not
able to throw any light in th
he matter and it appears that they were fo
rcibly made
to contest the election petitio
on. Be that whatever it may be.
Discussion on merits
Group 1 cases
22. To decide the contr
roversy in hand, it is necessary to rep
produce the
declaration made by respon
ndent no.1/Mukesh Malhotra in clause 5
of Part A of
his Affidavit filed in form 2
6, Ex. D.3, which reads as under :
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
28 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
i
¼ ½ eSa ;g ?kks"k.kk djrk
fo:) dksbZ vkijkf/kd ekeyk y
lkeus ykxw ugha gksuk fy[ks½
gwW fd esjs fo:) dksbZ vkijkf/kd ekeyk yafcr ugha gSA
yfEcr ugha gS- rks bl fodYi dks fpUgkafdr djs vkSj uh
¼;fn vH;FkhZ ds
hps fodYi ¼ i ½ ds
;k
¼ ii ½ esjs fo:) fuEufyf[kr
r vkijkf/kd ekeys yafcr gS
¼;fn vH;FkhZ ds fo:)
fodYi ¼ i ½ dks dkV ns vkSj uhps l
) vkijkf/kd ekeys yafcr gS rks bl fodYi fpUgkafdr
dks vkSj mijksDr
lkj.kh esa lHkh yafcr ekeyksa dk C;kSjs nsa½
lkj
j.kh
¼d½ lac) iqfyl Fkkus ds uke
e vkSj irs ds
VZ la-
Iqfyl Fkkuk
djkgy vijk/k
Iqfyl Fkkuk
djkgy vijk/k
Yk
Ykkxw ugha gksrk
lkFk izFke bfRryk fjiksVZ
dza- 02@2022
dza- 93@2023
¼[k½ U;k;ky; ds uke ds lkF
Fk ekeyk la- ts-,e-,Q-lh-
ts-,e-,Q-lh-
U;kf;d eftLVªsV
izFke Js.kh ';ksiqj
ds iz-d- vkjlhVh
Ykkx
xw ugha gksrk
U;kf;d
eftLVªsVizFke
Js.kh ';ksiqj ds
iz-d- vkjlhVh
1051@2023
972@2022
¼x½ varoZfyi laca/k vf/kfu;e
eksa@lafgrkvksa
la- nsa] vFkkZr
/kkjk,sa 323] 294]
506] 34 vkbZ-ih-
/kkjk,sa 294] 323]
Ykkx
xw ugha gksrk
dh /kkjk,a ¼/kkjk dh l
Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk] vkfn
½
341] 506] 34
fn dh /kkjk----
lh-
vkbZ-ih-lh-
¼N½ D;k dk;Zokfg;ksa ds
fo:) dksbZ
fy, vkosnu
kW ;k ugha dk
ykxw ugha gksrk ykxw ugha gksrk ykx
xw ugha gksrk
vihy@iqujh{k.k ds f
QkbZy fd;k x;k gS ¼gkW
mYys[k djsa½
23. From clause 5 of part
t A of affidavit, it is clear that in sub-cl
ause (d) the
summary description of c
crime no. 2/2022 has been mentioned
d as verbal
altercation ( eqagokn ) and in s
ub-clause (e) in which it was to be dec
clared as to
whether charges have been
framed or not, it has been mentioned by
y respondent
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
29 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
no.1/Mukesh Malhotra as “N
No”. Even in sub-clause (f) in which the
e respondent
no.1/Mukesh Malhotra was
required to disclose the date of framing o
of charge, it
has been mentioned as “not
applicable”. Thus, it is clear that in resp
ect of crime
no. 2/2022, the respondent
t no.1/Mukesh Malhotra had declared t
that charges
have not been framed and a
accordingly, the date of framing of char
rge was also
not given. Even in summ
mary of allegations, it was mentioned
d as Verbal
altercation ( ). Howev
eqagokn
ver, it is clear from order (Ex. P.11), ch
harges under
Sections 294,323,506 Part 2
2 of IPC were framed in RCT No. 972/2
2022 arising
out of crime no. 2/2022.
24. Similarly, it is clear
from order dated 17-10-2023 (Ex. P.1
12), charges
under Sections 294,323/34
(three counts), 506 Part 2 of IPC were
e framed in
RCT NO. 1051/2022 arising
g out of crime no. 93/2023. It is clear fro
om the order
framing charges, the alle
egations were that the respondent n
no.1/Mukesh
Malhotra, had caused hu
urt to Balwant, Ms.Bhagwanti and M
Ms. Meena.
However, in Part A clause 5
5 of affidavit, the respondent no.1/Mukes
sh Malhotra
( eqagokn ) and
had disclosed the summary
y of allegations as Verbal altercation (
mentioned “No” against th
he sub-clause requiring declaration as
to whether
charges have been framed o
or not and mentioned “not applicable” a
against sub-
clause requiring disclosure o
of date of framing charges.
25. In the written statem
ment, the respondent no.1/Mukesh M
alhotra had
claimed that it was bonafid
de mistake but in his evidence, he tried
to shift the
burden on to the shoulder of
f person filling up the nomination paper a
and affidavit
and submitted that although
h he had disclosed all the necessary det
tails to Shri
J.P. Dhanopia, the person
who was filling up the nomination
papers and
affidavit but in fact, Shri J.
.P.Dhanopia on his own mentioned the w
words “No”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
30 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
ven Verbal altercation ( eqagokn ) in affidav
and “not applicable” and ev
vit Ex. D.3.
The aforesaid explanation g
given by respondent no.1/Mukesh Malho
otra (D.W.1)
in his evidence is not su
pported by pleadings in written statem
ment. The
explanation given by respon
ndent no.1/Mukesh Malhotra (P.W.1) in h
his evidence
cannot be accepted because
e firstly, in absence of pleadings, such a
an evidence
cannot be accepted and seco
ondly, the respondent no.1/Mukesh Malh
hotra has not
examined Shri J.P. Dhanopi
ia who had allegedly filled up the nomin
nation paper
as well as the affidavit, Ex.
D.3 on behalf of respondent no.1/Mukes
sh Malhotra.
Further more, the nominat
tion paper and the affidavit (Ex. D.3)
contains a
declaration by the responde
ent no.1/Mukesh Malhotra that all the in
nformations
given in the said documen
nt are true to his personal knowledge
and belief.
Under these circumstan
ces, it is clear that it was the
respondent
no.1/Mukesh Malhotra, w
who had deliberately and consciously
given false
information in his affidav
vit, Ex. D.3. Although the respondent n
no.1/Mukesh
Malhotra in his written stat
tement had taken a stand that bonafide m
mistake has
taken place on account o
of lack of legal knowledge but the
respondent
no.1/Mukesh Malhotra (D.W
W.1) in his evidence has admitted that h
he has done
M.A. (Social Science), and
LL.B. Further more, this educational qua
alification is
also mentioned in affidav
vit, Ex. D.3. Thus, it is clear that
respondent
no.1/Mukesh Malhotra is a l
law graduate and therefore, his defence th
hat bonafide
mistake had occurred on acc
count of lack of legal knowledge is false
e even to the
knowledge of respondent no
o.1/Mukesh Malhotra.
26. Shri Vivek Tankha, S
Senior Advocate submitted that since, the
e respondent
no.1/Mukesh Malhotra had
d substantially complied with the pr
ovisions of
Section 33A of Represent
tation of the People Act and non-disc
closure that
“whether charges have be
en framed or not” or “non-disclosure
of date of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
31 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
framing of charges” or “inc
correct summary of allegations” is not
suppression
but it is merely an omission
which does not go to the root of the cont
troversy and
cannot be said to be monum
mental amounting to corrupt practice un
nder Section
123(2) of Representation of
the People Act, 1951.
27. Considered the afore
esaid submissions made by Counsel for
respondent
no.1/Mukesh Malhotra.
28. There is a specific
provision in affidavit to the effect tha
at “whether
charges have been framed
or not” and “if yes then the date of
framing of
charges”. The moot quest
tion for consideration is that what is t
the purpose
behind declaration that “whe
ether charges have been framed or not”?
29. After the cognizance
is taken, the next step in the trial is to
“either read
out the substance of accusat
tion or framing of charge”. “Framing of
f Charge” is
not a mere formality. It is a
an application of judicial mind to the facts
s of the case
to find out as to whether th
he material collected by the investigatin
ng agency is
sufficient to point out grave
e suspicion that the accused might have
e committed
the offence or not?
30. The Supreme Court in
n the case of Satishchandra Ratanlal Sh
hah v. State
of Gujarat, reported in (201
19) 9 SCC 148 has held as under :
9. Before we analyse
application preferred
against the order of the
wherein it is the duty
material placed before
prima facie case has be
framing of charges is o
liberty substantially. C
decision at this stage ca
this case, it is to be noted that the cr
by the accused before the High Cou
e trial court at the stage of framing of ch
riminal
urt was
harges,
d to the
of the court to apply its judicial mind
e it and to come to a clear conclusion
that a
rder for
een made out against the accused. An or
of serious concern to the accused as it affe
ects his
at their
Courts must therefore be cautious tha
auses no irreparable harm to the accused.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
32 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
10. Coming to the aspe
that such exercise ne
exceptional cases. It is
being initial stages in
the decision of quashi
quantity of evidence r
facie examination. (Ref
31. The Supreme Court
ect of quashing of the charges, it is well
eeds to be undertaken by the High Co
settled
ourt in
charges
s also well settled that the framing of c
the trial process, the court therein canno
ing the charge on the basis of the qua
rather the enquiry must be limited to a
ot base
ality or
a prima
fer to State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh .)
in the case of Ram Prakash Chadha
v. State of
U.P., reported in (2024) 10 S
SCC 651 has held as under :
23. In para 13 in P. Vija
enunciated earlier by t
Samal which reads thu
10)
“ 10 . … (1) That the Ju
the charges under Secti
sift and weigh the ev
whether or not a prima
out.
(2) Where the mater
suspicion against the a
the Court will be fully
with the trial.
(3) The test to determi
upon the facts of each
universal application. B
possible and the Judge
him while giving rise
against the accused, he
accused.
(4) That in exercising
the Judge which under
court cannot act mere
prosecution, but has to
total effect of the evid
Court, any basic infirm
however does not mea
ayan case , this Court took note of the pri
this Court in Union of India v. Prafulla
us: ( Prafulla Kumar Samal case , SCC p.
nciples
Kumar
9, para
udge while considering the question of f
framing
ion 227 of the Code has the undoubted po
ower to
ing out
n made
idence for the limited purpose of findi
a facie case against the accused has been
rials placed before the Court disclose
grave
plained
ceeding
accused which has not been properly exp
y justified in framing a charge and proc
ine a prima facie case would naturally d
h case and it is difficult to lay down a
depend
rule of
equally
By and large however if two views are e
e is satisfied that the evidence produced
before
spicion
arge the
e to some suspicion but not grave su
e will be fully within his right to discha
his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the
r the present Code is a senior and exper
ely as a post office or a mouthpiece
e Code
rienced
of the
ase, the
fore the
consider the broad probabilities of the ca
dence and the documents produced befo
mities appearing in the case and so on
an that the Judge should make a roving e
n. This
enquiry
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
33 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
into the pros and cons
was conducting a trial.”
24. In the light of the d
will be within the jurisd
the evidence for the li
prima facie case again
We are of the consider
reason that the chance
under Section 227 CrP
Section 232 CrPC, can
In this context, it is rel
Parkash Sharma v. CB
CrPC, is in negative ter
CrPC, is in the positiv
between the two, this C
while considering an a
the pros and cons of
proceed to discharge th
in the case therein are
practically acting unde
has not reached. In sho
materials for the limite
facie case is made ou
admissibility and the
record by the prosecu
denial of opportunity to
the appropriate stage
coupled with obligation
taking the evidence for
25. Even after referr
absolutely appropriate
High Court in Kaushal
case that if there is no l
groundless and compel
the procedure offendin
agreeing with the view
evidence” has to be co
case, “ the record of the
of the matter and weigh the evidence a
”
decisions referred supra, it is thus obvious
as if he
s that it
d weigh
or not a
diction of the Court concerned to sift and
mited purpose of finding out whether o
nst the accused concerned has been mad
de out.
ed view that a caution has to be sounded
es of going beyond the permissible juris
PC, and entering into the scope of power
for the
sdiction
r under
aplenty.
nnot be ruled out as such instances are a
levant to refer to a decision of this Court
BI . Taking note of the language of Secti
t in Om
on 227
ion 232
tinction
rminology and that the language in Secti
ve terminology and considering this dist
Court held that it would not be open to the
e Court
application under Section 227 CrPC, to
f the evidence alleged improbability an
weigh
nd then
he accused holding that the statements e
e unreliable. It is held that doing so wo
existing
ould be
r Section 232 CrPC, even though the sai
ort, though it is permissible to sift and we
d stage
eigh the
d purpose of finding out whether or not a
ut against the accused, on appreciation
a prima
of the
ught on
evidentiary value such materials brou
ution is impermissible as it would amo
ount to
o the prosecution to prove them appropria
ately at
besides amounting to exercise of the
n under Section 232 CrPC, available onl
r the prosecution and examining the accus
power
ly after
sed.
ring to the aforesaid decisions, we th
hink it
Pradesh
to refer to a decision of the Madhya P
lya Devi v. State of M.P. It was held in th
legal evidence, then framing of charge wo
he said
ould be
trary to
. While
n “legal
ma facie
lling the accused to face the trial is cont
ng Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
w, we make it clear that the expression
nstrued only as evidence disclosing prim
e case and the documents submitted there
with ”.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
34 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
26. The stage of S
determinative to both t
the issue further. In th
consideration. It canno
negative terminology w
for the final report file
negative report and on
concerned of having co
32. Thus, it is clear that s
Section 227 CrPC, is equally crucia
al and
the prosecution and the accused, we wil
l dilate
require
ched in
his context, certain other aspects also
ot be said that Section 227 CrPC, is couc
without a purpose. Charge-sheet is a mis
snomer
ed under Section 173(2) CrPC, which i
s not a
accused
e that carries an accusation against the a
ommitted the offence(s) mentioned therein
n.
tage of framing charge is not a mere form
mality but in
fact it is stage where a jud
dicial mind is applied to find out as to
whether the
material collected against th
he accused prima facie raises a grave su
uspicion that
the accused might have com
mmitted offence requiring his trial or not
and for that
purpose, the court has pow
wer to sift and weigh the evidence. A
An order for
framing of charges is of ser
rious concern to the accused as it affect
ts his liberty
substantially. Courts must t
therefore be cautious that their decision
at this stage
causes no irreparable harm t
to the accused.
33. Thus, a specific decla
aration in this regard by the candidate is n
necessary to
give an information to the
electorate that after application of judic
cial mind, it
has been found that ther
re is a sufficient material against the
e candidate
warranting his trial. Therefo
ore, non-disclosure of the fact that charge
es have been
framed, cannot be said to b
be a mere omission therefore, it is held t
that specific
declaration in Clause 5 of
part A of the affidavit that charges hav
ve not been
framed, was with a clear inte
ention to mislead the electorate.
34. Further more, a candi
idate is also required to give summary of
f allegations,
so that the electorate must
t know the nature of allegations made
against the
candidate. In the present c
case, in Crime No. 2/2022, the allegation
ns were that
the respondent no.1/Mukesh
h Malhotra had used abusive language in
the name of
mother of the complainant a
and also assaulted the complainant Bhola
by fists and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
35 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
blows and also extended a t
threat to his life. The aforesaid fact is cle
ear from the
order framing charge, Ex. P
.11. Similarly in Crime No. 93/2023, the
e allegations
were that the respondent n
no.1/Mukesh Malhotra had used abusiv
ve language
against Balwant, Bhagwati a
and Meena in the name of mother and sis
ster and also
assaulted Balwant, Bhagwat
ti and Meena and also extended a threat
to their life.
This fact is evident from or
rder framing charge, Ex. P.12. Thus, the
e contention
of the Election Petitioner,
that the allegations made against the
respondent
no.1/Mukesh Malhotra also
indicated that he has no respect for the
women also
appears to be correct. Howe
ever, it is made clear that there is no plea
ading in this
regard in the Election P
etition, although specific questions w
were put to
respondent no.1/Mukesh M
Malhotra (D.W.1) in his evidence in
this regard.
However, the Counsel for t
the respondent no.1/Mukesh Malhotra, d
did not raise
any objection that in absenc
ce of specific plea, the question of wron
g disclosure
of allegations should not be
considered and did not plead any prejudi
ice.
35. It is true, that pleadin
ngs should be specific and clear and any
evidence in
absence of pleading cannot
t be considered but at the same time, it
is also well
established principle of law
w that where the parties have gone t
to the Trial
knowing fully well the issue
es involved in the case, then in absence o
of prejudice,
the Court should also find o
out as to whether the issues involved in th
he trial were
well within their knowledge
e or not and should try to find out the sub
stance. The
pleadings should receive a l
liberal construction and no pedantic appro
oach should
be adopted to defeat justice
e or hair-spitting technicalities as held b
by Supreme
Court in the case of Ram
m Sarup Gupta v. BishunNarain Int
ter College
reported in (1987) 2 SCC 55
55. The relevant paragraph is as under :
6. The question wh
respondents in their
pleading that the licen
hich falls for consideration is wheth
her the
written statement have raised the nec
ce was irrevocable as contemplated by S
cessary
Section
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
36 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
60( b ) of the Act and, i
that plea. It is well sett
any, produced by the p
settled that no party sh
and that all necessary
party in support of the
pleading is to enable t
meet. In order to have
settle the essential mat
by surprise. The pl
construction; no pedant
on hair-splitting techni
words which may not
strict interpretation of l
ascertain the substance
not desirable to place u
of the pleadings shoul
lack of pleading is rais
form of the pleadings
substance the parties k
went to trial. Once it
pleadings parties knew
issues by producing ev
party to raise the que
Bhagwati Prasad v. Ch
considering this questio
f so, is there any evidence on record to s
tled that in the absence of pleading, evide
support
ence, if
equally
leading
parties cannot be considered. It is also e
hould be permitted to travel beyond its pl
y and material facts should be pleaded
by the
pose of
e case set up by it. The object and purp
the adversary party to know the case it
has to
should
e taken
a fair trial it is imperative that the party
terial facts so that other party may not be
leadings however should receive a
liberal
justice
essed in
tic approach should be adopted to defeat
calities. Some times, pleadings are expre
expressly make out a case in accordanc
law. In such a case it is the duty of the c
ce with
court to
of the pleadings to determine the questio
undue emphasis on form, instead the sub
on. It is
bstance
n about
bout the
ether in
d be considered. Whenever the question
ed the enquiry should not be so much ab
s; instead the court must find out whe
knew the case and the issues upon whic
ch they
t is found that in spite of deficiency
w the case and they proceeded to trial on
in the
n those
vidence in that event it would not be op
en to a
peal. In
estion of absence of pleadings in app
handramaul a Constitution Bench of this
on observed:
s Court
“If a plea is not sp
issue by implication
involved in the tria
expressly taken in th
a party from relyin
evidence. The gener
founded on pleadin
substantial matters r
are touched, though
and evidence has be
particular matter wa
be purely formal and
What the court has t
ecifically made and yet it is covered b
n, and the parties knew that the said plea
al, then the mere fact that the plea was
y an
was
s not
he pleadings would not necessarily disen
ng upon it if it is satisfactorily proved
ntitle
d by
ld be
ral rule no doubt is that the relief shoul
ngs made by the parties. But where
relating to the title of both parties to the
h indirectly or even obscurely in the iss
the
e suit
sues,
hat a
would
een led about them, then the argument th
as not expressly taken in the pleadings w
d technical and cannot succeed in every c
case.
ction
to consider in dealing with such an objec
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
37 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
is: did the parties kn
in the trial, and did t
the parties did not k
and one of them h
respect of it, that un
allow one party to
other party did not l
lead evidence, woul
in doing justice to
another.”
now that the matter in question was invo
olved
they lead evidence about it? If it appears
know that the matter was in issue at the
has had no opportunity to lead evidenc
s that
trial
ce in
ndoubtedly would be a different matter
r. To
h the
rely upon a matter in respect of which
lead evidence and has had no opportunit
ld introduce considerations of prejudice,
ty to
and
ce to
one party, the court cannot do injustic
36. As already pointed ou
ut, Shri Vivek Tankha, Senior Advocate,
Counsel for
respondent no.1/Mukesh M
Malhotra, did not plead any prejudice on
n account of
absence of specific plea in
n election petition regarding incorrect d
disclosure of
allegations, therefore, it is h
held that the respondent no.1/Mukesh M
Malhotra also
gave false declaration about
t the nature of allegations levelled against
t him in two
pending cases mentioned in
Group I cases . Therefore, it is held that
t respondent
no.1/Mukesh Malhotra, mis
lead the electorate by giving false inform
mation in his
affidavit filed in form 26.
Group II cases
37. In order to appreciate
e the non-disclosure of cases in which d
decision was
already rendered prior to fil
ling of affidavit in form 26, it would be
appropriate
to consider the declaration
n given by the respondent no.1/Mukesh
h Malhotra,
which reads as under :
¼ i ½ eSa ;g ?kks"k.kk djrk gwW
gwW fd eq>s fdlh vkijkf/kd ekeys esa nks"kfl) ugha fd;k x;
;k gSA
uhps fodYi ¼ ii ½
¼;fn vH;FkhZ nks"kfl)
ds lkeus ykxw ugha gks
ugha fd;k x;k gS rks bl fodYi dks fpUgkafdr djs vkSj u
krk gS fy[ks½
;k
¼ ii ½ eq>s uhps of.kZr vijk/
/kksa ds fy, fl)nks"kfd;kx;kgSA
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
38 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
jksDr fodYi ¼ i ½
¼;fn vH;FkhZ nks"kfl)
dks dkV nsa] vkSj uhps
fd;k x;k gS rks bl fodYi dks fpUgkafdr djs vkSj mij
nh xbZ lkj.kh esa C;kSjs nsa½
¼6d½ eSus] Åij iSjk ¼5½ vkSj
nks"kflf) ds lHkh ekeyksa ds ckjs e
kj ¼6½ esa fn, x, vuqlkj esjs fo:) lHkh yafcr vkijkf/kd
d ekeyksa dh vksj
esa vius jktuhfrd ny dks iwjh vkSj vn~;ru lwpuk ns nh
gSA
n ykxw ugha gksrh gS] mijksDr iSjk 5¼ i ½½ vkSj ijk 6¼ i ½ esa
¼,sls vH;fFkZ;ksa dks] ftUgs ;g en
dh izfof"V;kW dks
ns[krs gq,] Li"V :i ls ykxw ugha
ha gksrk gS] fy[kuk pkfg,½
fVIi.kh %
1- C;kSjs Li"V :i ls vkSj lqikB;
2- izR;sd en ds ekeys fofHkUu Lra
3- C;kSjs foykse dkykuqdze esa fn,
ekeyksa ds fy, rkjh[kksa ds dze esa
4- ;fn visf{kr gks rks i`Fkd 'khV
5- vH;FkhZ 2011 dh fjV ;kfpdk
lwpuk,a nsus dk mRrjnk;h gksxkA
:i ls cMs v{kjksa esa izfo"V fd;s tkus pkfg,A
raHkksa ds v/khu izR;sd ekeys ds fy, C;kSjs iFkd :i ls fn, t
tk,A
;k tk, vkSj vU;
tkus pkfg,] vFkkZr uohure ekeyksa dks igys of.kZr fd;
ihNs dh vksj of.kZr fd;k tk,A
tksMh tk ldrh gSA
k ¼flfoy½ la- 536 esaekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; ds
vuqikyu esa lHkh
38. The undisputed fact
is that the respondent no. 1/Mukesh M
Malhotra was
convicted in Forest Crim
me No. 32773/2014 for offence unde
er Sections
26(1)(a)(g) and 66(i) of Indi
ian Forest Act. It is clear from Judgment
dated 28-2-
2020 passed by C.J.M., Sh
heopur in RCT No. 1022/2014, Ex. P.
. 4 that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
39 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
respondent no.1/Mukesh Ma
alhotra was tried on the allegations that o
on 4-2-2014,
he was found in possession
of 210 freshly cut trees from reserved b
beat no. 351
and 352 of beat Rasen. Afte
er receiving an information, when the For
rest officials
went to the spot, that it was
s found that respondent no.1/Mukesh Ma
alhotra with
25 other persons had alrea
ady cut 210 green trees from the above
e mentioned
Reserved Forest Area and
d the freshly cut trees were also recov
vered. The
respondent no.1/Mukesh M
Malhotra, admitted his guilt and accordin
ngly he was
punished with a sentence of
f “till rising of Court” and a fine of Rs.
7000/- with
default imprisonment of 1
1 month. The respondent no.1/Mukes
sh Malhotra
(D.W.1) has admitted in pa
ara 8 of his cross examination that he h
ad not filed
any appeal against his c
conviction. Further in para 10 of
f his cross
examination, respondent n
no.1/Mukesh Malhotra (D.W.1) has ad
mitted that
the Vijaypur Assembly Co
onstituency is dominated by Adivasis an
nd Adivasis
worship the trees like a Go
od. However, he denied the suggestion th
hat under an
apprehension that disclosure
e of his conviction for forest offence wh
here he was
convicted for cutting 210 tr
rees would have adverse effect on the el
lectorate, he
did not disclose the same.
. It is the stand of the respondent n
no.1/Mukesh
Malhotra that since, his con
nviction was of less than 1 year, therefore
e, he did not
disclose his conviction un
nder Forest Offence. In para 13 of
f his cross-
examination, the responden
nt no.1/Mukesh Malhotra (D.W.1) had ad
dmitted that
society hates crime and the
erefore, it was necessary to give detail
ls of all the
informations sought in a
affidavit in form 26. Further, the
respondent
no.1/Mukesh Malhotra (D.W
W.1) also admitted that FIR in crime no.
2/2020 was
lodged against him for offen
nce under Section 505(2) of IPC Ex. P.1
3, however,
it was submitted by him
that since, he was acquitted in the sa
aid offence,
therefore, he did not disclos
se the same. In FIR in crime no. 2/2020
Ex. P.13, it
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
40 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
was alleged that responden
nt no.1/Mukesh Malhotra had tried to sp
pread hatred
against one particular comm
munity and had also demanded the ouster
r of the said
community from Karahal ar
rea.
39. Section 33A of Repre
esentation of the People Act read as under
r :
33A. Presentation of
valid nomination .--(1)
which he is required
thereunder, in his nomi
section 33, also furnish
(i) he is accused of any
years or more in a pend
the court of competent
f nomination paper and requirements
s for a
rmation
) A candidate shall, apart from any infor
to furnish, under this Act or the rules
ination paper delivered under sub-section
h the information as to whether--
s made
n (1) of
y offence punishable with imprisonment f
for two
med by
ding case in which a charge has been fram
jurisdiction;
(ii) he has been conv
referred to in sub-sect
section (3), of section
or more.
victed of an offence [other than any o
offence
tion (1) or sub-section (2), or covered i
in sub-
ne year
8] and sentenced to imprisonment for on
(2) The candidate or h
time of delivering to th
sub-section (1) of secti
the candidate in a pres
in sub-section (1).
his proposer, as the case may be, shall,
he returning officer the nomination paper
, at the
r under
worn by
on 33, also deliver to him an affidavit sw
cribed form verifying the information sp
pecified
(3) The returning offic
of information to him
information by affixing
section (2), at a conspi
the electors relating to
is delivered.
cer shall, as soon as may be after the furn
m under sub-section (1), display the afo
nishing
foresaid
g a copy of the affidavit, delivered und
icuous place at his office for the informa
er sub-
ation of
a constituency for which the nomination
n paper
40. Shri VivekTankha, S
enior Advocate relied upon the judgmen
nt passed by
Supreme Court in the case o
of C.P. John (Supra) and referred to Pa
ara 6 and 46
which reads as under :
6. With regard to the a
contended that of the tw
allegations based on criminal convictions,
, it was
o by the
wo criminal cases which were referred to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
41 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
appellant in the electio
acquitted by the Sessio
and that in CC No. 167
year and, therefore, the
The first respondent, th
petition as the same wa
on petition, in one case the first responde
ent was
of 2000
ons Court in Criminal Appeal No. 248 o
7 of 1995, the sentence awarded was less
ere was no violation of Section 33-A of th
herefore, prayed for the dismissal of the e
as not in conformity with Section 83 of th
s than a
he Act.
election
he Act.
ound which was raised in the election p
46. The only other gro
related to violation of
respondent stated to h
cases. As far as those tw
learned Senior Counse
our notice that the co
criminal cases was fac
has been noted that the
in Sessions Case No. 4
set aside in Criminal
dispute. Similarly, with
1995 the High Court h
in the said case was
imposed in the said c
A(1)( ii ) of the Act, the
information in the nom
offence referred to in s
he/she is sentenced to i
only then should it be
found in the present ca
and the sentence imp
compulsion for the firs
his nomination. There
declined to interfere w
can be found with the s
41. Shri Vivek Tankha,
petition
he first
f Section 33-A of the Act wherein, th
have suppressed his conviction in two cr
riminal
shodia,
ught to
ose two
wo criminal cases are concerned, Mr Shi
el appearing for the first respondent brou
ontention of the appellant based on tho
ctually incorrect. In the impugned judgm
e first respondent was convicted for the o
4 of 1975 but, however, the said convicti
ment it
offence
on was
Appeal No. 248 of 2000 which was
h reference to the conviction in CC No.
not in
167 of
dgment
entence
ion 33-
nish the
as noted that the certified copy of the jud
produced which disclosed that the se
case was less than a year. Under Secti
e requirement of the candidate is to furn
mination as regards his/her conviction f
sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 8
for any
8 and if
imprisonment for a period of one year or
e disclosed in the nomination. As it ha
r more,
as been
of 1995
was no
ase that the conviction in CC No. 167 o
posed was less than a year, there w
st respondent to disclose the said convic
efore, on this ground when the High
with the election of the first respondent, n
ction in
Court
no fault
said conclusion.
Senior Advocate also relied upon th
e judgment
passed by Supreme Court in
n the case of Satish Ukey (Supra) refe
rred to para
23 which reads as under :
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
42 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
23. The position is m
Election Commission o
States and the Union T
go to show that a c
information concernin
taken cognizance alon
framed. The said letter
in Section 33-A(2) of t
any false declaration
affidavit will attract th
The letters in this rega
2014, relevant portions
23.1. Letter dated 24-8-
“1. Sub. : Affidavit to
paper-modification of f
The candidates at elec
hitherto were required t
to Conduct of Electio
prescribed by the Com
27-3-2003, as subsequ
dated 25-2-2011. In t
declare information ab
liabilities and education
2. On a proposal move
affidavits into one form
as to include in it all
separate affidavits. The
revised Form 26 in the
said notification dated
3. In view of the am
hereafter, file only one
8-2012 (at elections
requirements to be fo
mentioned in the notes
made further clear by the letters written
by the
f all the
of India to the Chief Electoral Officer of
Territories. A reading of the said letters
would
furnish
urt has
ve been
contesting candidate is mandated to
ng the cases in which a competent cou
ng with the cases in which charges hav
s also make it clear that the affidavit men
the 1951 Act is prescribed in Form 26 a
ntioned
and that
or concealment of information in th
e provisions of Section 125-A of the 195
ard are dated 24-8-2012, 26-9-2012 and
s of which are extracted below:
he said
51 Act.
d 26-4-
-2012:
be filed by candidates with their nom
format-regarding .
ctions to Parliament and the State Legis
ination
slatures
to file two affidavits: one, in Form 26 app
ons Rules, 1961 and the other, in the
mmission, vide its Order No. 3/ER/2003
pended
e Form
3 dated
number
uently modified by the letter of even n
the affidavits, the candidates are requ
bout their criminal background, if any,
ired to
assets,
nal qualifications.
d by the Commission for amalgamating t
mat, the Government has amended Form
the two
m 26 so
l the information that was sought in th
e Ministry of Law and Justice have notif
he two
fied the
y of the
e Gazette of India on 1-8-2012. A copy
1-8-2012 is enclosed herewith.
mendment to Form 26, all candidates
e affidavit in the revised Form 26 notified
s shall,
d on 1-
s). The
to Parliament and State Legislatures
ollowed while filing the affidavit have
e been
given at the end of the format….
*
to furnish a copy of this letter along w
5. You are requested t
copy of the enclosed
registered unrecognised
with the
notification to every political party (inc
d parties) having headquarters in your Sta
cluding
ate/UT,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
43 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
including the State un
parties.”
nits of recognised National and State p
political
(emphasis su
-2012 :
upplied)
23.2. Letter dated 26-9-
“ Sub. : Affidavit to be
paper-regarding :
filed by the candidates with their nom
ination
*
and Part B of the revised Form 26 rel
2. Item 5 of Part A a
information regarding
candidates. It is clarifie
B of Form 26, the deta
been taken by the Cour
framing of charges wi
may be brought to the
nomination at all future
23.3. Letter dated 26-4-
“ Sub. : Filing of false af
Sir/Madam,
You are aware that the
Conduct of Elections R
2012. Now the candid
assets and liabilities
candidate’s criminal an
affidavit in Form 26. T
Form 26 will attract th
125-A, furnishing of
information in the af
punishable with impris
2. Prior to amendmen
regarding declaration a
educational qualificatio
Commission. In the ca
said affidavit, the C
3/ER/2004, dated 2-6-2
before the Returning O
the affidavit and if the
of the complaint, then
competent court under
lates to
criminal antecedents to be furnished
ed that in Item (5)( ii ) of the said Part A an
by the
nd Part
nce has
ment or
te . This
ils of all pending cases in which cognizan
rt, irrespective of the quantum of punishm
ill have to be disclosed by the candidat
e notice of all candidates when they fil
e general/bye-elections in the State…”
le their
-2014 :
ffidavit in Form 26.reg.
format of affidavit in Form 26 appended
Rules, 1961, was amended with effect fro
d to the
om 1-8-
dates are required to make declarations
s about
including that of spouse and depen
ntecedents and educational qualifications
The concealing of information in the affid
ndants,
, in the
davit in
he provisions of Section 125-A. Under S
f any false information or conceal
Section
ing of
offence
both.
ffidavit
ffidavit in Form 26 is an electoral o
onment up to six months, or with fine or b
nt to Form 26 in August 2012, the af
about assets, liabilities, criminal anteceden
nts and
on was given in the format prescribed
ase of complaints about false statement
Commission, vide its Circular Lette
2004, had clarified that if complaints wer
Officer raising the issue of false declara
e RO was prima facie satisfied about the
by the
t in the
er No.
re filed
ation in
e merits
n the RO was to file a complaint befo
ore the
CrPC.
Section 177 IPC read with Section 195 C
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
44 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
3. Now that the affidav
Act, 1951, making fals
affidavit would be cov
Section 125-A, there
section have to be mad
the RO). Therefore, it w
petition before the app
petition for action un
declaration or concealin
vit is in Form 26 under Section 33-A of
the RP
n in the
se declaration/concealing of information
vered under Section 125-A of the Act.
Under
der the
his case
is no stipulation that complaints und
de by the public servant concerned (in th
would be open to any aggrieved person to
o move
on with
propriate court of competent jurisdictio
nder Section 125-A in the case of any
y false
m 26.”
ng of information in the affidavit in Form
(emphasis su
upplied)
42. Shri Vivek Tankha, S
Senior Advocate also relied upon judgmen
nt passed by
Madhya Pradesh High Cou
urt in the case of Umang Singhar Vs
s. Chhattar
Singh and others decided o
on 2-1-2006 in E.P. No . 13 of 2004 in w
which it was
held that “From a bare peru
usal of provisions contained in this Sectio
on, it is clear
that a prospective candidate
is not required to disclose particulars of
the criminal
case in which he has been a
acquitted or discharged.” Shri Vivek Tan
nkha, Senior
Advocate also relied upon a
another judgment passed by co-ordinate b
bench of this
Court in the case of Rasa
al Singh Vs. The Election Commissio
on of India
decided on 4-9-2014 in E.P
P. No. 10/2014 in which it was held that
t “it is clear
that a candidate is not requi
ired to disclose (a) the cases in which he
is acquitted
or discharged of criminal of
ffences;”.
43. It was submitted by S
Shri Vivek Tankha, Senior Advocate tha
at since, the
respondent no.1/Mukesh M
alhotra was sentenced to imprisonment t
till rising of
Court and a fine of Rs. 70
000/- with default imprisonment of one
month”” in
Forest Crime No. 32773/201
14, therefore, he was not under obligation
n to disclose
the same. Similarly, it
was submitted that although the resp
pondent no.
1/Mukesh Malhotra was also
o convicted in crime No. 32/2011 by the
Trial Court,
but since he was acquitted
by the Appellate Court, therefore, it w
was also not
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
45 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
necessary for him to disc
close the same in the light of Sectio
on 33-A of
Representation of the People
e Act.
44. However, it was su
ubmitted by Counsel for Election Peti
itioner, that
disclosure of all the details
of criminal antecedents is necessary in
the light of
evolution of law regarding
right to information of electorate. The
Counsel for
the Election Petitioner relied
d upon the judgment passed by Supreme
Court in the
case of Assn. for Democra
atic Reforms (Supra) and referred to th
he following
paragraphs:
21. Further, it is to be s
Constitution is “republ
the election to the Hou
the basis of adult suffra
of India and who is no
be fixed in that behalf
legislature and is not o
any law on the ground
or corrupt or illegal p
voter at any such ele
(immovable or movab
eligibility criteria to c
superintendence, direct
to Parliament and to th
Commission. The phra
amplitude which wo
provisions for conducti
Question 1
Whether the Election
as ordered by the High
22. For health of demo
of assets by a candidate
involvement in crimin
maybe illiterate, so tha
for. In our opinion, the
educated and informed
stated that: ( a ) one of the basic structures
lican and democratic form of governmen
s of our
nt”; ( b )
se of People and the Legislative Assembl
age, that is to say, every person who is a
ot less than 18 years of age on such date
ly is on
citizen
as may
ropriate
ution or
f by or under any law made by the appr
otherwise disqualified under the Constitu
d of non-residence, unsoundness of mind
, crime
ed as a
practice, shall be entitled to be registere
ection (Article 326); ( c ) holding of any
ble) or any educational qualification is n
y asset
not the
ontest election; and ( d ) under Article 3
tion and control of the “conduct of all ele
he legislature of every State vests in the E
24, the
ctions”
Election
ase “conduct of elections” is held to be o
of wide
uld include power to make all nec
ing free and fair elections.
cessary
Commission is empowered to issue dire
h Court
ections
ocracy and fair election, whether the disc
closure
garding
e, his/her qualification and particulars reg
nal cases are necessary for informing
voters,
to vote
roperly
e based
at they can decide intelligently, whom t
e decision of even an illiterate voter, if pr
d about the contesting candidate, would be
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
46 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
on his own relevant cr
periodical elections are
the country and for the
form of government, vo
to elect or re-elect
performance of the ca
whether holding of edu
relevant for electing o
Voter has to decide
candidate who is invol
of elections and a he
educated and well inf
information would i
qualification including
his life including wheth
case is decided — its re
cognizance is taken by
the relevant facts from
riteria of selecting a candidate. In demo
e conducted for having efficient governan
ocracy,
nce for
mocratic
e benefit of citizens — voters. In a dem
oters are of utmost importance. They hav
ve right
nd past
on the basis of the antecedents an
andidate. The voter has the choice of de
eciding
perty is
ucational qualification or holding of prop
r re-electing a person to be his represen
whether he should cast vote in favou
lved in a criminal case. For maintaining
ealthy democracy, voters are required
formed about the contesting candidates
ntative.
ur of a
g purity
to be
s. Such
nclude assets held by the candidat
g educational qualification and antecede
te, his
ents of
nd if the
her he was involved in a criminal case an
esult, if pending — whether charge is fra
y the court. There is no necessity of supp
amed or
ressing
the voters.
*
46. To sum up the leg
from the aforesaid disc
1. The jurisdiction of
include all powers nec
word “elections” is use
of election which consi
2. The limitation on pl
State Legislature has m
with elections, the Com
the said provisions. In
reservoir of power to a
fair election. The Con
exercise of residuary p
creature of the Consti
may emerge from tim
contingency could not
or the rules. By issuing
the vacuum till there is
case the Court constru
gal and constitutional position which em
cussion, it can be stated that:
f the Election Commission is wide eno
cessary for smooth conduct of elections a
merges
ough to
and the
process
ed in a wide sense to include the entire p
ists of several stages and embraces many
steps.
ment or
enary character of power is when Parliam
made a valid law relating to or in conn
mmission is required to act in conformit
nection
ty with
24 is a
n case where law is silent, Article 32
act for the avowed purpose of having fr
nstitution has taken care of leaving sco
power by the Commission in its own rig
ree and
ope for
ght as a
tution in the infinite variety of situatio
me to time in a large democracy, as
ns that
every
ed laws
be foreseen or anticipated by the enacte
g necessary directions, the Commission
can fill
l Omar
irection
legislation on the subject. In KanhiyaLa
ued the expression “superintendence, di
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
47 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
and control” in Article
order issued to a parti
have to follow and it m
phrase should be co
Commission to issue su
3. The word “elections
consists of several stag
may have an import
candidate. Fair electio
his past including the a
to the candidate acco
earlier, in Common Ca
elections in the count
which is gathered from
becomes easy to coll
retaining power and fo
required to disclose the
voter can decide wheth
has collected tons of m
Presuming, as contend
Kumar, that this condi
vicious circle which ha
as the amount would
have its own effect as
breakers as law-makers
4. To maintain the p
transparency in the pro
candidates about the ex
this transparency in
transparency of a cand
democracy, the elector
this country would
particulars of a candida
laws to bind his liberty
5. The right to get
throughout and it is
democracy. At this sta
the International Coven
under:
e 324(1) and held that a direction may m
mean an
cular individual or a precept which man
may be a specific or a general order an
onstrued liberally empowering the E
uch orders.
s” includes the entire process of election
ges and it embraces many steps, some of
ny may
nd such
Election
n which
f which
osing a
tant bearing on the process of choo
n contemplates disclosure by the candid
assets held by him so as to give a proper
date of
choice
rding to his thinking and opinion. As
ause case the Court dealt with a contenti
stated
ion that
try are fought with the help of money
power
ower, it
m black sources and once elected to po
ect tons of black money, which is us
or re-election. If on an affidavit a candi
sed for
idate is
ion, the
e assets held by him at the time of electi
her he could be re-elected even in case wh
money.
here he
ded by the learned Senior Counsel Mr A
Ashwani
ition may not be much effective for brea
aking a
country
as polluted the basic democracy in the c
be unaccounted. Maybe true, still this
s a step-in-aid and voters may not elec
s and some flowers of democracy may blo
purity of elections and in particular to
would
ct law-
ossom.
o bring
ocess of election, the Commission can a
ask the
xpenditure incurred by the political parti
n the process of election would i
ies and
include
n. In a
didate who seeks election or re-election
al process has a strategic role. The little
man of
w full
t where
have basic elementary right to know
ate who is to represent him in Parliament
and property may be enacted.
information in democracy is recognis
a natural right flowing from the conc
age, we would refer to Article 19(1) and
sed all
cept of
d (2) of
nant on Civil and Political Rights, whic
ch is as
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
48 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
“( 1 ) Everyone shall
interference.
( 2 ) Everyone shall hav
shall include freedom
ideas of all kinds , regar
print, in the form of art
6. On cumulative read
referred to, it is clea
executive is left unoc
Court would have am
Articles 141 and 142 o
to the executive to subs
7. Under our Constitu
speech and expressio
election would include
out or expresses by ca
the candidate to be sele
right to know anteced
contesting election for
basic for survival of
before making his cho
have the right to hold opinions w
without
ve the right to freedom of expression; thi
is right
on and
ng or in
to seek, receive and impart informatio
rdless of frontiers, either orally, in writin
t, or through any other media of his choic
ding of a plethora of decisions of this C
ar that if the field meant for legislatu
e.”
ourt as
ure and
cupied detrimental to the public intere
mple jurisdiction under Article 32 rea
st, this
d with
rections
of the Constitution to issue necessary dir
serve public interest.
ution, Article 19(1)( a ) provides for freed
dom of
case of
n. Voter’s speech or expression in c
e casting of votes, that is to say, voter
asting vote . For this purpose, information
speaks
n about
tizen’s)
ected is a must. Voter’s (little man — cit
dents including criminal past of his can
ndidate
r MP or MLA is much more fundamen
tal and
k over
akers .
democracy. The little man may think
oice of electing law-breakers as law-ma
*
48. The Election Com
affidavit by issuing ne
Article 324 of the Con
election to Parliament
nomination paper, furn
aspects in relation to hi
( 1 ) Whether the candi
criminal offence in the
imprisonment or fine.
( 2 ) Prior to six months
is accused in any pe
imprisonment for two y
cognizance is taken by
( 3 ) The assets (imm
candidate and of his/he
mmission is directed to call for informat
tion on
r under
seeking
ecessary order in exercise of its power
nstitution of India from each candidate s
or a State Legislature as a necessary part
nishing therein, information on the fol
is/her candidature:
t of his
llowing
idate is convicted/acquitted/discharged
e past — if any, whether he is punishe
of any
ed with
s of filing of nomination, whether the can
ending case, of any offence punishabl
ndidate
le with
amed or
years or more, and in which charge is fra
the court of law. If so, the details thereof
movable, movable, bank balance, etc.)
f.
) of a
er spouse and that of dependants.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
49 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
( 4 ) Liabilities, if any,
any public financial ins
( 5 ) The educational qua
particularly whether there are any overd
stitution or government dues.
dues of
alifications of the candidate.
45. The Counsel for the
Election Petitioner also relied upon th
he judgment
passed in the case of Peopl
e’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) (
(Supra) and
referred to the following par
ragraphs :
III. Section 33-B is un
III. (1) The right to inf
nconstitutional
formation cannot be frozen and stagnate
ed
B has to
110. In my view, the
be judged from the ab
light, I agree with the
does not pass the test
one. Firstly, when the
candidate is recognized
ought to be, it follows
be chained and circum
no information, other
should be required to
areas of disclosure was
disclosure on other as
Assuming that the guar
making a departure fro
to Parliament to stop a
in future. In other w
information other than
the need of the hour an
view, impermissible.
freedom of speech an
necessities of the times
may give rise to the n
aspects not provided f
events may demand th
right to information s
frozen and stagnated; b
non obstante clause im
to the freedom of exp
e constitutional validity of Section 33-B
bove angle and perspective. Considered
in that
n 33-B
re than
ntesting
conclusion of M.B. Shah, J. that Section
of constitutionality. The reasons are mo
right to secure information about a con
d as an integral part of fundamental righ
ht as it
that its ambit, amplitude and parameters
mscribed for all times to come by declari
cannot
ng that
he Act,
than that specifically laid down in th
be given. When the legislation delimiti
s enacted, it may be that Parliament felt t
ing the
that the
spects was not necessary for the time
being.
ated by
ot open
rantee of right to information is not viola
m the paradigms set by the Court, it is no
all further disclosures concerning the can
ndidate
tion of
ctive of
words, a blanket ban on disseminat
that spelt out in the enactment, irrespec
nd the future exigencies and expedients is
, in my
cept of
The felt
It must be remembered that the conc
nd expression does not remain static. T
s coupled with experiences drawn from th
need to insist on additional information
he past
on the
arch of
on. The
n being
d by the
for by law. New situations and the ma
he flow of additional facets of informatio
should be allowed to grow rather than
but the mandate of Section 33-B prefaced
mpedes the flow of such information con
nducive
n under
pression. In the face of the prohibition
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
50 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
Section 33-B, the Elec
function of monitoring
to sit back with a sens
for insisting on additio
feel handicapped in ta
right to information. In
the nature of informati
only to the specific ma
more would emascul
expression of which
objective of recogniz
fundamental right und
fair elections would be
B is taken to its logical
III. (2) Impugned legi
on certain vital aspects
ction Commission which is entrusted w
g and supervising the election process wi
with the
ill have
ng need
at times
se of helplessness in spite of the pressin
onal information. Even the Court may a
aking necessary remedial steps to enfor
rce the
rtailing
ndidates
n my view, the legislative injunction cur
on to be furnished by the contesting can
atters provided for by the legislation and n
nothing
late the fundamental right to freedo
om of
he very
the right to information is a part. Th
ing the right to information as part
er Article 19(1)( a ) in order to ensure fr
e frustrated if the ban prescribed by Secti
of the
ree and
ion 33-
l effect.
islation fails to effectuate right to inform
s
ason why Section 33-B should be condem
mation
111. The second rea
that by blocking the
specifically provided fo
effect to one of the v
assets and liabilities a
effect to the right to
expression. The right to
legislature no doubt r
ignoring the other esse
discussed hereinafter,
information which the
the guarantee enshrined
III. (3) How far the p
upon the judicial spher
mned is
as been
ambit of disclosures only to what ha
for by the amendment, Parliament failed
to give
sure of
to give
dom of
vital aspects of information viz. disclos
and thus failed in substantial measure t
o information as a part of the freed
o information which is now provided for
relates to one of the essential points
ential aspect relating to assets and liabil
r by the
but in
ities as
mbit of
nged on
Parliament has unduly restricted the am
citizens should have and thereby impin
d in Article 19(1)( a ).
principle that the legislature cannot en
croach
re applies
principle of constitutional jurisprudence t
112. It is a settled p
only way to render a j
law by way of amend
basis of the judgment
legislature cannot ove
without lawfully remov
Court because it is ob
judicial power vested
that the
judicial decision ineffective is to enact
dment or otherwise fundamentally alteri
a valid
ing the
t either prospectively or retrospectivel
errule or supersede a judgment of the
y. The
e Court
ving the defect or infirmity pointed out
bvious that the legislature cannot trench
by the
on the
le, it is
in the courts. Relying on this principl
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
51 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
contended that the dec
be set at naught in th
impugned legislation.
question of altering the
arise in the instant case
of fundamental right
Court.
cision of the Apex Constitutional Court
cannot
by the
hat the
he manner in which it has been done
As a sequel, it is further contended th
e basis of judgment or curing the defect d
oes not
ailment
by this
e as Parliament cannot pass a law in curta
recognized, amplified and enforced b
113. The contention
Assn. for Democratic
Parliament, does not ap
scope and ratio of th
directives given by t
observed earlier, those
was a vacuum in the
passed the legislation
certain limited aspects
up and the judgment
down and observations
need to secure inform
new legislation has to
Of course, in doing so,
weight and there cann
information considere
fundamental right to in
that Parliament did no
on certain crucial poin
time, placed an emb
enacting Section 33-B
Amendment Act does
interpreted by this Cou
IV. Right to informatio
n that the fundamental basis of the deci
ision in
ered by
1
Reforms case has not at all been alte
ppeal to me. I have discussed at length t
he judgment and the nature and chara
the real
cter of
on. As
en there
this Court to the Election Commissio
directions are pro tempore in nature whe
field. When once Parliament stepped
providing for right of information, may
, the void must be deemed to have been
in and
ybe on
n filled
on laid
works itself out, though the propositio
s made in the context of Article 19(1)( a )
mation to the citizens will hold good. N
on the
ow the
9(1)( a ).
ven due
be tested on the touchstone of Article 19
, the decision of this Court should be giv
not be a marked departure from the ite
ed essential by this Court to effectua
nformation. Viewed in this light, it must b
ot by law provide for disclosure of infor
nts such as assets and liabilities and at th
ems of
ate the
be held
rmation
he same
argo on calling for further informatio
. That is where Section 33-B of the imp
s not pass the muster of Article 19(1)
urt.
ons by
pugned
)( a ), as
on with reference to specific aspects
scuss the specifics of the problem. With
o information, this Court gave certain dir
114. I shall now dis
to promote the right to
to the Election Commis
hoc in nature. The E
details from the contest
( i ) criminal record, ( i
qualification. The Th
a view
rectives
were ad
call for
namely,
ssion which, as I have already clarified, w
Election Commission was directed to c
ting candidates broadly on three points, n
ii ) assets and liabilities, and ( iii ) educ
hird Amendment to the RP Act whic
cational
ch was
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
52 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
preceded by an ordinan
far the Third Amendm
2002 safeguards the
guaranteed right und
considered now with
spelt out in the judgm
1
Reforms case .
IV. (1) Criminal back
candidates — Section
nce provided for disclosure of information
ment to the Representation of the Peop
n. How
le Act,
right of information which is a part
der Article 19(1)( a ), is the question
of the
to be
points
ocratic
specific reference to each of the three
ment of this Court in Assn. for Dem
kground and pending criminal cases a
against
t
33-A of the RP (Third Amendment) Act
he first aspect, namely, criminal recor
115. As regards th
directives in Assn. for
p. 322, para 48)
rd, the
: (SCC
1
Democratic Reforms case are twofold
“( 1 ) Whether the c
any criminal offence in
imprisonment or fine.
candidate is convicted/acquitted/dischar
n the past — if any, whether he is punishe
rged of
ed with
( 2 ) Prior to six m
candidate is an accu
punishable with impris
charge is framed or cog
As regards the seco
proceeded on the same
to furnish information
punishable with impris
in which a charge has
the case in which cogn
framed is not covered
having taken the right
of cases relating to m
failed to provide for th
which cognizance ha
knowledge that on acco
tactics of one or the oth
machinery, framing o
especially in serious ca
through. On that acc
information regarding
punishable with impri
right to information, w
months of filing of nomination, wheth
her the
used in any pending case, of any o
offence
sonment for two years or more, and in
gnizance is taken by the court of law.”
which
ond directive, Parliament has substa
e lines and made it obligatory for the can
n as to whether he is accused of any o
antially
ndidate
offence
ng case
owever,
onment for two years or more in a pendin
been framed by the competent court. Ho
nizance has been taken but charge has no
d by clause ( i ) of Section 33-A(I). Parl
ot been
liament
step of compelling disclosure of the pen
major offences, there is no good reason
ndency
why it
ature of
he disclosure of the cases of the same na
as been taken by the Court. It is co
ommon
ount of a variety of reasons such as the de
her accused and inadequacies of the prose
of formal charges gets delayed consid
elaying
ecuting
derably,
ases where committal procedure has to b
count, the voter/citizen shall not be
be gone
denied
offence
cognizance taken by the Court of an o
sonment for two years or more. The ci
when once it is recognized to be part
itizen’s
of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
53 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
fundamental right und
manner in which it h
therefore falls short o
information on a vital
taken should therefo
information accessible
provided for in clause (
der Article 19(1)( a ), cannot be truncated
d in the
has been done. Clause ( i ) of Section 3
of the avowed goal to effectuate the ri
33-A(I)
ight of
as been
l aspect. Cases in which cognizance ha
ore be comprehended within the ar
e to the voters/citizens, in addition to w
rea of
what is
( i ) of Section 33-A.
ause ( ii ) of Section 33-A(I), Parliament b
116. Coming to cla
followed the pattern sh
fit to draw a line bet
serious offences while
legislative thinking th
regard to past cases c
clause fails to provide
Parliament felt that th
relating to petty/non-se
the electorate, it canno
information becomes
large may not involve
the learned Senior Cou
are prosecuted for p
demonstrations and v
imprisonment. Informa
real importance to the
merits of the candidate
balancing of various
judgment cannot be fau
directions of this Cou
regards acquittals, it
information will not be
facie implies that the a
prosecution has no leg
from the factum o
voters/citizens would b
other hand, such info
misleading signals abou
broadly
ought it
hown by the Court itself. This Court tho
tween major/serious offences and mino
e giving Direction 2 (vide para 48). If
hat this distinction should also hold g
or/non-
so, the
ood in
he said
date. If
ng past
cannot be faulted on the ground that th
e adequate information about the candid
he convictions and sentences of the lon
erious offences need not be made avail
ot be definitely said that the valuable r
able to
right to
a casualty. Very often, such offences b
by and
moral turpitude. It is not uncommon, as
unsel pointed out that the political person
politically related activities such as h
visited with the punishment of fine or
one of
nalities
holding
r short
t be of
relative
ion and
ation regarding such instances may not
electorate in judging the worth of the r
es. At any rate, it is a matter of percepti
factors, as observed supra. The legi
ulted merely for the reason that the pro te
urt have not been scrupulously follow
islative
empore
ed. As
at such
is reasonable to take the view tha
e of much relevance inasmuch as acquitta
l prima
e or the
accused is not connected with the crime
gs to stand. It is not reasonable to expe
of prosecution resulting in acquitta
ect that
al, the
be able to judge the candidate better. O
ormation in general has the potential t
On the
to send
date.
ut the honesty and integrity of the candid
117. I am therefore
what Parliament has pr
of the view that as regards past criminal
rovided for is fairly adequate.
record,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
54 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
118. One more a
exclusion of offences r
8 of the RP Act, 19
conviction for certain
from the point of vie
existing provisions viz
(Amendment) Rules, 2
offences in the nomin
excluded from the amb
46. The Supreme Court i
spect which needs a brief comment
referred to in sub-sections (1) and (2) of S
951. Section 8 deals with disqualificat
is the
Section
tion on
offences. Those offences are of serious
ew of national and societal interest. Ev
nature
ven the
. Rule 4-A inserted by the Conduct of El
2002 makes a provision for disclosure o
nation form. Hence, such offences hav
bit of clause ( ii ) of Section 33-A.
ections
of such
ve been
in the case of Public Interest Foundati
ion (Supra)
has held as under :
116. Keeping the afore
following directions w
Court:
116.1. Each contesting
the Election Commissi
as required therein.
116.2. It shall state, in
pending against the can
116.3. If a candidate
particular party, he/sh
criminal cases pending
116.4. The political par
website the aforesaid
criminal antecedents.
116.5. The candidate
issue a declaration in t
about the antecedents o
the electronic media. W
same shall be done at le
117. These directions o
earnestness in a bid to
certain gaps or lacuna
definitely be addressed
intent, strong resolve a
ameliorate the situatio
said in view, we think it appropriate to is
which are in accord with the decisions
ssue the
of this
g candidate shall fill up the form as provi
ided by
on and the form must contain all the part
ticulars
n bold letters, with regard to the crimina
al cases
ndidate.
is contesting an election on the ticke
he is required to inform the party abo
et of a
out the
against him/her.
rty concerned shall be obligated to put up
p on its
information pertaining to candidates
having
as well as the political party concerne
the widely circulated newspapers in the l
d shall
locality
of the candidate and also give wide publ
When we say wide publicity, we mean t
icity in
that the
papers.
nd right
east thrice after filing of the nomination p
ought to be implemented in true spirit an
strengthen the democratic set-up. There m
ae in a law or legislative enactment whi
may be
ich can
d by the legislature if it is backed by the
proper
minds to
and determined will of right-thinking m
n. It must also be borne in mind that t
the law
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
55 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
cannot always be fou
implementation by th
solemn responsibility o
directions laid down by
the culture of purity
nurture an informed ci
decides the fate and co
that “we shall be gov
complete information a
forms the bedrock of
the citizenry. Be it
cornerstone to have a p
47. The Supreme Court in
und fault with for the lack of its st
he authorities concerned. Therefore, it
tringent
is the
l as the
o infuse
of all concerned to enforce the law as wel
y this Court from time to time in order to
in politics and in democracy and fost
itizenry, for ultimately it is the citizenry
ourse of politics in a nation and thereby e
ter and
y which
ensures
verned no better than we deserve”, and
d thus,
ndidates
about the criminal antecedents of the can
wise decision-making and informed cho
oice by
clearly stated that informed choice
pure and strong democracy.
is the
n the case of Krishnamoorthy (Supra) h
has held as
under :
86. From the aforesaid
right is paramount. If
attempt to interfere on
influence. Free exerc
pronouncements of thi
are to be perceived re
probity in public life
entitled to have an info
any of the candidates,
Liberties , can opt not t
disclosure, especially th
an informed and inst
acquaintance to the in
apprised of the entire
heinous or serious o
turpitude, the exercise
He will be exercising h
apart, his fundamental
has to be perceived as
who is expected to vot
The same is sought to b
settled in law that elect
of the notification till
, it is luculent that free exercise of any el
lectoral
ence or
o undue
there is any direct or indirect interfere
n the part of the candidate, it amounts to
cise of the electoral right after the
recent
visions
on and
voter is
is Court and the amendment of the pro
egard being had to the purity of electio
which have their hallowedness. A v
ormed choice. A voter who is not satisfie
ed with
or Civil
as has been held in People’s Union fo
to vote for any candidate. The requireme
ent of a
he criminal antecedents, enables a voter t
tructed choice. If a voter is denied
to have
of the
n to be
formation and deprived of the condition
e gamut of criminal antecedents relat
offences or offence of corruption or
ting to
moral
ed one.
of electoral right would not be an advise
his franchisee with the misinformed mind
d. That
attempt
a voter,
right to know also gets nullified. The a
creating an impediment in the mind of a
te to make a free, informed and advised
be scuttled at the very commencement. It
choice.
is well
ssuance
tion covers the entire process from the is
the declaration of the result. This positi
ion has
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
56 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
been clearly settled i
Election Commission o
P.J. Francis . We hav
practice can take place
of the requisite informa
been stated hereinabov
87. At this juncture,
instructions issued from
India. On 2-7-2012, th
following instructions:
“To,
The Chief Electoral Of
States and UTs.
Sub. : Affidavit filed
papers—dissemination
Sir/Madam,
Please refer to the Com
of information in the a
nomination papers. Th
copies of affidavits
RO/ARO, and in cases
boundary of the constit
displayed in the prem
limits of the constit
candidates are required
2. There are complain
publicity/awareness m
about the availability o
result that the affidavi
enabling the electors to
to enable them to make
3. The Commission ha
should be issued at the
the candidates are av
mentioning in the press
the affidavits have been
it clear that the affidav
path to locate them on t
in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Is
of India v. Shivaji and V.S. Achuthanan
ve also culled out the principle that c
e prior to voting. The factum of non-disc
shaque ,
ndan v.
corrupt
closure
, as has
ation as regards the criminal antecedents,
e is a stage prior to voting.
, it will be appropriate to refer to
certain
sion of
ued the
m time to time by the Election Commis
he Election Commission of India has issu
fficer of all
by candidates along with their nom
thereof.
mination
mmission’s instructions regarding dissem
affidavits filed by the candidates along w
mination
with the
he Commission has, inter alia, directe
should be displayed on the noticebo
s where offices of RO and ARO are outs
ed that
oard of
side the
tuency concerned, copies of affidavits sho
mises of a prominent public office with
ould be
hin the
ntesting
tuency. Further, affidavits of all con
d to be uploaded on the website of the CE
O.
dequate
nsitized
with the
nts at times that in the absence of ad
echanism, the general public is not sen
of the affidavits filed by the candidates w
its do not fully serve the intended purp
o know the background of the candidate
e an informed choice of their representativ
as directed that, at every election, press
pose of
es so as
ve.
release
avits of
State and district level stating that affida
vailable for the electors to see and
s release of the DEO place(s) at which co
clearly
opies of
n displayed. The press release should also
vits can also be viewed on the website, a
o make
and the
the website should also be mentioned.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
57 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
4. Please bring these in
other authorities concer
nstructions to the notice of all DEOs, RO
rned for compliance in future elections.
Os and
Yours fait
thfully,
Wilfred)
(K.F. W
Principal Sec
referring to the instructions of the E
e affidavit sworn by the candidate has to
cretary”
Election
91. The purpose of
Commission is that the
in public domain so tha
truth, as submits Mr S
denied of the informati
candidate. When somet
it tantamounts to fraud
v. Jagannath . While
information, as has b
antecedents, is not give
effort to misguide a
undeniably and undis
amounts to corrupt pr
candidate gives all the
that will be an inform
electorate. That is why
and the corrupt practic
is required to assert ab
is involved as per the r
the affidavit. Once th
practice. We repeat at t
an election petition by t
94. In view of the abov
94.1. Disclosure of cr
pertaining to heinous
corruption or moral tur
as mandated by law is a
94.2. When there is no
areas mentioned in the
the free exercise of elec
94.3. Concealment or s
make an informed and
would come within the
be put
the half
at the electorate can know. If they know t
alve, it is more dangerous, for the electo
ion which is within the special knowledge
orate is
e of the
sclosed,
a Naidu
thing within special knowledge is not dis
, as has been held in S.P. Chengalvaraya
filing the nomination form, if the re
been highlighted by us, relating to cr
equisite
riminal
uppress,
en, indubitably, there is an attempt to su
and keep the people in dark. This a
attempt
erefore,
hat if a
he votes
sputedly is undue influence and, the
ractice. It is necessary to clarify here th
particulars and despite that he secures th
med, advised and free exercise of right
by the
fication
there is a distinction between a disqualif
e. In an election petition, the election pet
bout the cases in which the successful can
titioner
ndidate
osure in
rules and how there has been non-disclo
hat is established, it would amount to
corrupt
mined in
the cost of repetition, it has to be determ
the Election Tribunal.
ve, we would like to sum up our conclusio
ons:
riminal antecedents of a candidate, espe
s or serious offence or offences relat
ecially,
ting to
n paper
rpitude at the time of filing of nomination
a categorical imperative.
on-disclosure of the offences pertaining
e preceding clause, it creates an impedim
g to the
ment in
ctoral right.
suppression of this nature deprives the vo
d advised choice as a consequence of w
oters to
which it
e compartment of direct or indirect interf
ference
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
58 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
or attempt to interfere w
electorate, on the part o
94.4. As the candidate
where cognizance has
there is a non-disclos
influence and, therefore
the Election Tribunal u
94.5. The question whe
not arise in a case of th
95. Before parting w
unreserved appreciatio
Harish N. Salve, learn
learned Additional Soli
96. Ex consequenti, the
with costs, which are a
48. The Supreme Court i
under :
with the free exercise of the right to vote
of the candidate.
e by the
has the special knowledge of the pending
g cases
med and
been taken or charges have been fram
sure on his part, it would amount to
undue
void by
e, the election is to be declared null and v
under Section 100(1)( b ) of the 1951 Act.
ether it materially affects the election or n
his nature.
not will
with the case, we must put on reco
on for the valuable assistance rendered
rd our
by Mr
ned Senior Counsel and Mr Maninder
icitor General for the Union of India.
e appeal, being sans substance, stands dis
Singh,
smissed
ssessed at Rs 50,000.
in the case of Ajmera Shyam (Supra)
has held as
11. CONCLUSION
11.1 Judicial interventi
information, as discus
sanitising the electoral
making candidates' cr
criminals from partici
electoral process —
parliamentary democra
extraordinary power t
only disclosure of crim
disclose assets, liabilit
candidates became m
antecedents, assets and
voters certainly invigor
obligatory disclosure b
subtle distinction betw
that of assets and ed
criminal antecedents i
ion in election disputes concerning disclo
osure of
ssed above, was prompted by the qu
l process by eliminating polluting eleme
est for
ents by
prevent
iminal antecedents public. Aiming to p
ipating in elections to maintain purity
— essential for the proper functioni
of the
ing of
acy — the court was compelled to exer
cise its
tly, not
o issue specific directions. Consequent
minal antecedents, but also related obligat
tions to
election
ties, and educational qualifications of e
mandatory. The knowledge of the cr
d educational qualifications of the candid
riminal
dates by
rates the electoral process, which is ensu
ured by
y the candidate. However, the Court has m
ween non-disclosure of criminal anteceden
made a
nts and
sure of
ducational qualifications. While disclos
in the electoral process was the most
critical
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
59 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
element to maintain the
scrupulously adhered
qualifications were
requirements to streng
be certain scope for co
inconsequential nature.
e purity of the electoral process which ha
as to be
cational
mentary
to, disclosure of assets and educ
considered as attending supplem
gthen the electoral process, of which the
ere will
onsideration as to whether it is of substan
ntial or
.
In the light of the abo
and educational qu
unreasonably stretched
election over minor
substantial character, a
the people's mandate.
ve, this disclosure requirement as far as
alification is concerned, should n
d to invalidate an otherwise validly de
s assets
not be
eclared
not of
ation of
technical noncompliances that are n
and should not be the basis for nullifica
11.2 In the light of the
facts in the peculiar bac
non-disclosure of inco
years by Respondent N
Therefore, the nomin
Section 36(2) of the R
contended by the Appe
the Returning Officer i
No. 1. Resultantly, the
Respondent No. 1's ele
the ground that the no
accepted.
legal position exposited, on examination
ckground obtaining in the case, we hold t
ome in the income tax return for four fin
n of the
that the
nancial
aracter.
No. 1, is not a defect of substantial cha
nation could not have been rejected
Representation of the People Act, 1
under
1951 as
itted by
pondent
ellant and hence, no illegality was commi
in accepting the nomination of the Resp
e penal clause cannot be invoked to inv
ection under Section 100(1)(d)(i) of the
validate
Act on
roperly
mination of Respondent No. 1 was impr
11.3 As we have held
not of a substantial nat
cannot be considered to
meaning of Section 1
Respondent No. 1 cann
the Act.
that the defect of non-disclosure mentio
ture, for the same reason the Respondent
oned is
t No. 1
thin the
o have indulged in a corrupt practice wit
123 (2) of the Act, and thus, the elect
tion of
1)(b) of
not be rendered void under Section 100(1
11.4 Consequently, on
that the Respondent No
the same consideration, it cannot be al
o. 1 did not comply with the relevant pro
so said
visions
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
60 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
of the Act or any rule
provisions of Section 1
e or order made under the Act, to attr
ract the
00(1)(d)(iv) of the Act.
11.5 Furthermore, we a
No. 1 did not disclose t
Chairperson of ZillaPar
MLA pension—canno
established, nor these a
49. The Supreme Court in
also hold that the allegation that the Resp
pondent
the income from honorarium she received
d as the
ving ex-
rishad, or that she did not disclose receiv
ot be considered to have been prov
are of any material consequences.
ved or
n the case of Lok Prahari (Supra) has h
held as under
:
79. We shall now dea
non-disclosure of asse
“undue influence” —
1951 RP Act. In this b
on a judgment of this C
case arising under t
notification was issued
that every candidate a
disclose information, in
any pending crimina
imprisonment for two
framed or cognizance h
petition, it was alleged
falling in the abovemen
not disclosed by the
nomination. One of the
non-disclosure amount
under the Panchayats
Act simply adopted the
Section 123 of the 195
80. On an elaborate con
Court in Krishnamoort
“ 91 . … While filing th
as has been highlighted
given, indubitably, ther
and keep the peopl
l with Prayer 2 which seeks a declarati
ets and sources of income would amo
on that
ount to
a corrupt practice under Section 123(2)
ehalf, heavy reliance is placed by the pet
Court in Krishnamoorthy v. Sivakumar . I
of the
titioner
t was a
994. A
pulating
uired to
the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 19
d by the State Election Commission stip
at an election to any panchayat is requ
nter alia, whether the candidate was accu
al case of any offence punishable
used in
e with
ve been
election
pending
years or more and in which charges hav
has been taken by a court of law. In an e
d that there were certain criminal cases p
ntioned categories but the said informati
on was
ing his
returned candidate at the time of fili
e questions before this Court was whethe
ted to “undue influence” — a corrupt p
er such
practice
Act. It may be mentioned that the Panc
e definition of a corrupt practice as conta
chayats
ained in
1 RP Act.
nsideration of various aspects of the matt
thy case held as follows: (SCC p. 522, par
he nomination form, if the requisite inform
ter, this
ra 91)
mation,
d by us, relating to criminal antecedents
, is not
isguide
ly and
re is an attempt to suppress, effort to mi
le in dark. This attempt undeniabl
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
61 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
undisputedly is undue
practice. …”
81. For the very s
Krishnamoorthy , we ar
assets and sources of
would constitute a co
influence” as defined u
therefore, allow Prayer
e influence and, therefore, amounts to c
corrupt
same logic as adopted by this Co
ourt in
osure of
re also of the opinion that the non-disclo
income of the candidates and their ass
orrupt practice falling under heading “
sociates
“undue
ct. We,
under Section 123(2) of the 1951 RP Ac
r 2
50. The Supreme Court in
n the case of Poonam (Supra) has held a
as under :
19. It is now necessary
the petitioner that notw
for committing a ser
turpitude. The convicti
the petitioner was not
minor offence.
y to deal with the contention raised on be
ehalf of
was not
withstanding her conviction, the same w
rious offence or one touching upon
ion being under Section 138 of the Act o
moral
f 1881,
n for a
liable to be unseated for her conviction
We are unable to accep
of non-disclosure of
form. Rule 24A-(1) r
conviction suffered by
relevant information b
affidavit prescribed un
regards conviction and
year and more. The va
not been subjected to
treated as valid. Its com
furnish such informatio
candidate with the con
of the Rules of 1994. T
of the returned candida
1994 that would enable
exempt its compliance
non-serious offence or
such course as urged w
Rules of 1994.
pt this contention which seeks to dilute t
the fact
mination
the petitioner's conviction in the nom
requires a candidate to disclose any or
rder of
with the
y him by filing an affidavit along w
efore the Returning Officer. The format
nder the Rules of 1994 requires a disclo
t of the
sure as
n of one
sentence of imprisonment for a duration
lidity of Rule 24-A(1) of the Rules of 19
994 has
any challenge. It would therefore have
mpliance has been made mandatory as fai
e to be
ilure to
visits a
visions
election
Rules of
on along with an affidavit as prescribed v
nsequence of non-compliance of the pro
This in turn is a ground to challenge the e
ate. In absence of any provision in the R
e the Court to condone such non-complia
e on the ground that the conviction wa
ance or
s for a
dopting
and the
r one not involving moral turpitude, ad
would do violence to the Act of 1961 a
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
62 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
20. At this stage, we
in Krishnamoorthy (sup
non-disclosure of cri
including those involv
to contest an election w
law right, it was observ
e may refer to the decision of this
Court
ffect of
pra) wherein this Court considered the ef
minal cases in respect of serious of
ing moral turpitude. After noting that th
was neither a fundamental right nor a co
ved as under:
ffences
he right
ommon
“The controversy whic
furnishing of the infor
criminal cases, especia
relating to corruption o
practice, regard being h
ch has emanated in this case is whethe
rmation while filing an affidavit pertain
ally cases involving heinous or serious cri
er non-
ning to
imes or
or moral turpitude would tantamount to
had to the concept of undue influence”.
corrupt
It was thereafter conclu
uded in paragraph 86 as under:
“In view of the above,
we would like to sum up our conclusions
s:
(a) Disclosure of crim
pertaining to heinous
corruption or moral tur
as mandated by law is a
minal antecedents of a candidate, espe
s or serious offence or offences relat
ecially,
ting to
n paper
rpitude at the time of filing of nomination
a categorical imperative.
(b) When there is non
areas mentioned in the
the free exercise of elec
n-disclosure of the offences pertaining
e preceding clause, it creates an impedim
to the
ment in
ctoral right.
(c) Concealment or su
make an informed and
would come within the
or attempt to interfere w
electorate, on the part o
uppression of this nature deprives the vo
oters to
which it
d advised choice as a consequence of w
e compartment of direct or indirect interf
ference
e by the
with the free exercise of the right to vote
of the candidate.
(d) As the candidate h
where cognizance has
there is a non-disclos
influence and, therefore
the Election Tribunal u
has the special knowledge of the pending
g cases
med and
been taken or charges have been fram
sure on his part, it would amount to
undue
void by
e, the election is to be declared null and v
under Section 100(1)(b) of the 1951 Act.
(e) The question wheth
not arise in a case of th
her it materially affects the election or n
his nature.”
not will
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
63 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
This Court was conce
embezzlement by the
The reference to heino
corruption or moral tu
backdrop. This Court
heinous or not involvin
of Krishnamoorthy (sup
offences is mandated
minor or non-serious o
erned with the suppression of various ca
ases of
n form.
ating to
concerned candidate in his nomination
ous or serious offences or offences rela
urpitude would have to be seen in that
factual
was not
was not dealing with an offence that w
ng moral turpitude. It is therefore not th
pra) that disclosure only of serious and h
he ratio
heinous
n for a
and that failure to disclose conviction
ffence could be condoned, as a principle.
We may however clar
judicial discretion in t
in Ravi Namboothiri (s
or not. Hence, the dec
basis to hold that non
offence was always
seriously.
rify that ultimately it is a matter of exer
rcise of
xercised
the given facts of the case, as was ex
supra), as to whether such non-disclosure
is fatal
cision in Krishnamoorthy (supra) cannot
be the
n-disclosure of conviction in case of a
minor
viewed
intended to be condoned and not v
21. The plea raised by
aside in the absence o
had been materially aff
her nomination form ne
been non-disclosure of
an impediment in the
voter is thus deprived
would be a case of s
which renders the elect
the petitioner that her election could not
f it being proved that the result of the e
fected on account of the improper accepta
t be set
election
ance of
here has
eed not detain us. Once it is found that th
f a previous conviction by a candidate, it
creates
oter. A
free exercise of electoral right by a vo
of making an informed and advised cho
suppression/non-disclosure by such can
tion void.
oice. It
ndidate,
22. In this regard, we
Kathore v. Arun Dattat
candidate to the Legisl
the constituency on t
returned candidate had
Officer and that the el
provisions of the Repre
in all five candidates
Court held that the
disclosures in the affid
e may refer to the decision in Kisan S
Shankar
traySawant . Therein the election of the re
eturned
er from
ative Assembly was challenged by a vote
the ground that the nomination form
d been improperly accepted by the Ret
lection was void due to non-compliance
of the
turning
e of the
esentation of the People Act, 1951. Ther
re were
in the fray. In the election petition, the
e High
material
returned candidate failed to make m
davit filed along with the nomination for
rm and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
64 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
hence the nomination f
Officer. It further held
affected due to non-di
the election of the retur
the challenge to the sai
non-disclosure of mate
to the decisions in A
and People's Union fo
was held that if the req
Election Commission
suppression/non-disclo
the result of the elec
disclosure of such info
under:—
form was improperly accepted by the Ret
d that the result of the election was ma
turning
terially
rdingly,
isclosure of relevant information. Accor
rned candidate was set aside. While cons
idering
spect of
eferring
id judgment, this Court noted that the as
rial information was an admitted fact. Re
Association for Democratic Reforms
or Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of In
(supra)
ndia , it
s of the
ount to
quired information as per the guidelines
was not given, the same would amo
osure of relevant information. On the asp
pect of
o non-
h 28 as
ction being materially affected due to
formation, it was observed in paragraph
“Issue No. 8 pertains t
was materially affecte
information. The High
(1)(d)(i) and (iv) and d
cited by the appellan
against the appellant, th
to the question as to whether the election
ed because of non-disclosure of the afo
h Court took note of provisions of Secti
discussed the same. Thereafter, some judg
nt were distinguished and deciding this
n result
foresaid
on 100
gments
s issue
he High Court concluded as under:
“137. In my opinion,
beyond a point, except
acceptance of nomina
affidavit filed therewith
of the nomination fo
returned candidate and
to further plead or pro
been materially affecte
it is not necessary to elaborate on this
t to observe that when it is a case of im
ation on account of invalid affidavit
matter
mproper
or no
ral part
rns the
h, which affidavit is necessarily an integr
orm; and when that challenge concer
d if upheld, it is not necessary for the Pet
titioner
ve that the result of the returned candid
d by such improper acceptance.
ate has
138. The avowed purp
disclosure of all the re
immovable) and liabil
pending or in respect o
of competent jurisdict
specified offences). Th
accomplishment of free
pose of filing the affidavit is to make t
truthful
ble and
elevant matters regarding assets (movab
lities as well as criminal actions (regi
istered,
e Court
pect of
l to the
f which cognizance has been taken by the
tion or in relation to conviction in resp
hose are matters which are fundamental
e and fair election. It is the fundamental r
right of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
65 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
the voters to be inform
for electing candidate
and to make truthful d
of the candidate who o
to represent the voters
disclose this informatio
be allowed to be ridic
information or supp
disinformation and m
disclosure to be made
obligation.”
med about all matters in relation to such
details
rmation
of their choice. Filing of complete infor
disclosure in respect of such matters is th
he duty
election
offers himself or who is nominated for e
from that Constituency. As the candidate
on on affidavit, the solemnity of affidavit
culed by the candidates by offering inco
pressing material information, resulti
misinformation to the voters. The sanc
e has to
cannot
omplete
ing in
ctity of
by the candidate flows from the constit
tutional
Affirming the said find
ding, it was held in paragraph 38 as under
r:—
“…Once it is found tha
was misinformation or
state that question of r
later date. When the C
resulted in rejection,
candidate was not entit
at it was a case of improper acceptance, a
as there
one can
r suppression of material information, o
rejection in such a case was only deferr
Court gives such a finding, which woul
ed to a
ld have
the effect would be same, namely,
tled to contest and the election is void…”
such a
23. In Sri Mairemba
PukhremSharatchandra
fray. The returned ca
regards his educationa
The acceptance of his
The High Court held
candidate as regards hi
finding was upheld by
election of the returned
improper acceptance o
the decision in Kisan S
in paragraph 23 as unde
amPrithviraj @ Prithviraj Singh
8
a Singh , two candidates were in the e
andidate failed to submit any docume
al qualification alongwith the nomination
v. Shri
election
ents as
n form.
nomination form was accordingly chall
d that the declaration made by the re
lenged.
eturned
is educational qualification was false. Th
y this Court. On the question as to wheth
he said
her the
to such
made to
d candidate was materially affected due t
of the nomination form, reference was m
Shankar Kathore (supra). It was thereaft
ter held
er:—
“23. Mere finding that
nomination is not suffi
under Section 100(1)(d
that the result of the el
affected. But, there wo
t there has been an improper acceptance
e of the
icient for a declaration that the election
d). There has to be further pleading and
lection of the returned candidate was ma
ould be no necessity of any proof in the e
is void
d proof
aterially
vent of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
66 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
the nomination of a ret
improperly accepted, e
candidates in the fray
declared to have been
could not have conteste
of the returned candida
further. We do not find
judgment in DuraiMuth
this case.”
turned candidate being declared as havin
especially in a case where there are on
ng been
nly two
ation is
y. If the returned candidate's nomina
n improperly accepted it would mean t
that he
election
ed the election and that the result of the e
ate was materially affected need not be
d substance in the submission of Mr.Giri t
proved
that the
facts of
huswami (supra) is not applicable to the f
Though in the aforesa
contested the elections
information in the aff
amounted to non-disc
That such wrongful acc
candidate would resu
rendering it void was re
aid case there were only two candidate
s, the principle that failure to disclose re
es who
elevant
n form
fidavit filed along with the nomination
closure of material information was ac
cepted.
eturned
affected
ceptance of the nomination form of the re
ult in the election being materially a
ecognised as a consequence.
24. Even otherwise,
in Krishnamoorthy (sup
to criminal antecedent
which creates an imped
a voter. When there is
this Court held in pa
election is materially af
, it is clear from the d
pra) that non-furnishing information per
decision
rtaining
ts has the effect of causing undue inf
diment in the free exercise of electoral r
s such non-disclosure of criminal antec
aragraph 86(e) that the question wheth
fluence
ight by
edents,
her the
ffected or not would not arise in such a ca
ase.
It is thus clear that by
138 of the Act of 1881
and thus failed to com
24-A(1) of the Rules o
has therefore been righ
candidate, her election
account of such wron
election was materially
fails.
failing to disclose her conviction under S
Section
rmation
of Rule
on form
, the petitioner suppressed material infor
mply with the mandatory requirements o
of 1994. The acceptance of her nominatio
htly held to be improper. She being the re
n was rendered void. It is thus obvious t
eturned
that on
rm, the
ner also
ngful acceptance of her nomination for
y affected. This contention of the petition
25. We may now in
the Constitution of In
present case. The Con
ndicate why discretion under Article
ndia does not deserve to be exercised
136 of
in the
e while
nstitution Bench in Pritam Singh v. State
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
67 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
explaining the scope a
held that:
and powers of the Court under Article 1
136 has
“Generally speaking, th
is shown that except
substantial and grave
question presents featu
the decision appealed a
his Court will not grant special leave, un
tional and special circumstances exis
nless it
st, that
injustice has been done and that the c
ures of sufficient gravity to warrant a rev
case in
view of
against.”
Having considered the
the petitioner has made
that notwithstanding th
her conviction leading
such lapse should be
affidavit filed under Ru
to be incorrect and f
acquittal in appeal, wh
not step into the witn
now sought to be put f
its requirement does n
both the Courts have c
disclose her conviction
therefore, no special o
petitioner for this Cou
the Constitution of Ind
petitioner had conteste
removal and she lost th
entire matter, we are not persuaded to ho
e out an exceptional case for this Court t
he failure on the part of the petitioner to d
g to the sentence of imprisonment of on
old that
to hold
disclose
ne year,
condoned. The information furnished
ule 24-A(1) of the Rules of 1994 has been
false. The petitioner rests on her subs
hich event occurred after her election. S
in her
n found
sequent
She did
which is
ess box to explain her inadvertence, w
forward. The plain reading of Rule 24-A(
not admit of any doubt whatsoever. Mo
(1) and
oreover,
concurrently found that the petitioner fa
n without any justifiable reason. In thes
or exceptional case has been made out
urt to exercise jurisdiction under Article
ailed to
se facts
by the
136 of
hat the
dia. In the passing, we may observe th
ed the bye election that had occasioned
he same.
by her
26. For all the above
dismissed.
51. Although the Counse
e reasons, the Special Leave Petition
stands
el for the Election Petitioner, by taking
g clue from
judgment passed by Suprem
me Court in the case of Poonam (Supra
a) submitted
that non-disclosure of crimin
nal case in which conviction for a period
of less than
1 year was recorded would
d also amount to corrupt practice, but th
his Court is
unable to accept the said
contention. In the case of Poonam (S
Supra) , the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
68 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
returned candidate had sup
ppressed that She was convicted for on
ne year for
offence under Section 138 o
of Negotiable Instruments Act and as per
the relevant
rule, the candidate was unde
er obligation to disclose all criminal case
es, in which
they have been convicted fo
for one year or more. Since, the returne
ed candidate
was convicted for one year,
therefore, it was held that non-disclosure
e of criminal
case amounted to corrupt pr
actice.
52. However, the Counse
el for Election Petitioner is right in relyin
ng upon the
judgment passed in the case
e of Poonam (Supra) that where the sup
ppression is
found proved then whether t
the nature of offence was trivial or wheth
her it did not
materially effect the election
n result becomes secondary as Court cann
not condone
such non-compliance or
exempt its compliance on the groun
nd that the
conviction was for a non-ser
rious offence or one not involving moral
turpitude.
Conclusion
53. The Supreme Court in
n the case of Poonam (Supra) has elabo
orately dealt
with the evolution of law
pertaining to disclosure of criminal a
antecedents.
Therefore, it is suffice to
o mention here that non-disclosure o
of complete
information regarding the s
stage of pending cases, by itself would
d amount to
suppression of material fact,
, resulting in corrupt practice.
54. This Court has alrea
ady held that the disclosure of fact tha
at “whether
charges have been framed o
or not” is not a mere formality but that pr
rovision has
been made purposely in ord
der to make the electorate aware that ev
en the Trial
Court has prima facie found
d that the material collected against the
candidate is
sufficient to raise grave su
uspicion that he might have committed
the offence
warranting his trial. This C
Court has also held that the respondent n
no.1/Mukesh
Malhotra has also failed to
prove that wrong declaration regarding n
non framing
of charge was his bonafide
mistake because in the written statement
t, he did not
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
69 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
allege against Shri J.P. Dh
hanopia who according to respondent n
no.1/Mukesh
Malhotra had filled up the a
affidavit in form 26 but also did not exam
mine the said
person in support of his con
ntention. For the purposes of clarity, it is
s mentioned
that there is no pleading in
written statement, that the respondent n
no.1/Mukesh
Malhotra had disclosed all t
the necessary facts to Shri J.P. Dhanopia
a, but it was
he who did not disclose the
e same in the affidavit, Ex. D.3. Therefor
re, it is held
that the affidavit in form
26 was filled up by the respondent n
no.1/Mukesh
Malhotra by himself, he h
had deliberately gave a false declaratio
on that “no
charges have been framed”
” in the pending criminal cases. As alre
ady pointed
out, the respondent no.1/Mu
ukesh Malhotra is a law graduate and po
ost graduate
in Social Science, therefore
e, he was aware of the importance of or
rder framing
charges. Even, the resp
ondent no. 1/Mukesh Malhotra also
gave false
information with regard to
nature of allegations made in the pendin
ng cases by
mentioning that the allegati
ions are only of verbal altercation. In fa
act in Crime
No. 93/2023, the allegatio
ons were of assaulting and abusing th
hree victims
including two women. The
respondent no.1/Mukesh Malhotra was a
aware of the
fact that society may not a
accept his conduct of assaulting women
n. In cross-
examination, respondent no
.1/Mukesh Malhotra had also admitted th
hat since, he
had also lodged a cross c
case, therefore, the complainants had e
entered into
compromise and during th
he pendency of this election petition, h
he has been
acquitted. Acquittal of resp
ondent no.1/Mukesh Malhotra in crime n
no. 93/2023,
during the pendency of this
s election petition has no relevance for th
he purposes
of adjudicating the controve
ersy in hand. Therefore, the respondent n
no.1/Mukesh
Malhotra gave false inform
mation regarding the nature of allegatio
ons levelled
against him in crime no. 2/2
022 and 93/2023.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
70 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
55. So far as non-disc
closure of two cases in which the
respondent
no.1/Mukesh Malhotra was
s convicted by the Trial Court is conc
cerned, it is
suffice to mention here tha
at in none of those two cases, he was co
onvicted for
more than 1 year. However
r, the respondent no.1/Mukesh Malhotra,
himself has
admitted in his cross exam
mination that Vijaypur Assembly Con
stituency is
dominated by Adivasi pop
pulation and Adviasis worship trees a
and he was
convicted for imprisonment
t “till rising of Court and a fine of Rs.
7000/- with
default imprisonment of o
one month” in Forest Crime No. 3277
73/2014 for
offence under Sections 26
(1)(a)(g) and 66(i) of Indian Forest A
Act, and the
allegations were of cutting 2
210 trees. Looking to the very purpose o
of disclosure
of criminal antecedents of t
the candidate and the right of the elector
rate to know
about the background of t
the candidate, it was desirable on the
part of the
respondent no.1/Mukesh M
Malhotra to disclose the said case also.
So far as
Crime No. 32/11, in which t
the respondent no.1/Mukesh Malhotra wa
as convicted
by the Trial Court for assau
ulting the complainant Kuldeep Joshi by s
shoe and for
using abusive language, but
t he was later on acquitted by the Appella
ate Court by
judgment dated 17-6-2016, E
Ex. D.4 is concerned, but it was also desi
irable on the
part of the respondent no.1
/Mukesh Malhotra to have disclosed th
e said case.
Further more, the responden
nt no.1/Mukesh Malhotra was also tried
for offence
under Section 505(2) of IPC
C in crime no. 2/2020 for spreading hatre
ed against a
particular community and a
also for raising demand to oust the mem
mbers of the
said particular community,
but by judgment dated 11-3-2023 Ex. D
D.6, he was
acquitted mainly on the gro
ound that the complainant had turned hos
stile. It was
also desirable on the part o
f the respondent no. 1/Mukesh Malhotra
a to disclose
the said case also, but that w
was not done. However, in view of Sect
tion 33-A of
Representation of the Peo
ople Act, it is made clear that non-di
isclosure of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
71 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
aforesaid cases may not am
mount to corrupt practice warranting setti
ing aside of
his election.
56. Further more, it is cle
ear from the evidence of the representativ
ves of News
Papers, the information reg
garding criminal antecedents was not p
published in
News Papers having wide ci
irculation in Assembly Constituency 02 V
Vijaypur.
57. Under these circum
mstances, it is held that respondent n
no.1/Mukesh
Malhotra by deliberately
and knowingly suppressing material
information
regarding framing of charg
ges in two pending criminal cases,has
misled the
electorate,therefore, it is he
eld that such suppression has materially
y created an
impediment in the free exer
rcise of electoral rights, and has deprived
d the voters
to make an informed and a
advised choice and therefore, this act of
suppression
has resulted in direct or ind
direct interference with free exercise of r
right to vote
by the electorate and since
e, it was within the knowledge of the
respondent
no.1/Mukesh Malhotra abou
ut the pending cases and whether charge
s have been
framed or not, therefore, thi
is act of respondent no.1/Mukesh Malho
otra amounts
to undue influence, necessita
ating the declaration of his result as null a
and void. It
is made clear that it is not
necessary for this Court to consider as
to whether
suppression on the part of th
he respondent no.1/Mukesh Malhotra ha
as materially
effected the election result
t or not because it has to be presume
d and such
question does not arise. Thu
us, respondent no. 1/Mukesh Malhotra is
s held guilty
of corrupt practice.
58. For the reasons menti
ioned above, the election of respondent n
no.1/Mukesh
Malhotra as M.L.A. from A
Assembly Constituency 02 Vijaypur in by
ye-elections
held in the year 2024 is h
hereby declared as null and void and
all adverse
consequences as provided
in Representation of the People Act, 1
1951 would
follow.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:M
MPHC-GWL:8025
72 EP. N
No. 24 of 2024
59. Since, the Election P
Petitioner had also sought a declaration
n that he be
declared as elected as he w
was the candidate who had secured sec
ond highest
votes, therefore, the Election
n Petitioner Ram Niwas Rawat is declare
ed elected as
M.LA. from Assembly Con
nstituency 02 Vijaypur, Distt. Sheopur
in the bye-
elections which were held i
in the year 2024. The Election Commiss
sion as well
as Returning Officer are dire
ected to complete the formalities in this re
egard.
60. Accordingly, the Elec
ction Petition is allowed with no order
as to costs.
The parties shall bear their r
respective expenses.
(G.S. Ahlu
Judge
uwalia)
Aman
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 09-03-2026
03:15:38 PM