False Declaration of Own Educational Qualifications Does Not Constitute Corrupt Practice Under Section 123(4) of RPA

The Petitioner challenged the 2020 election of Respondent No. 1 to the Delhi Legislative Assembly from the Karol Bagh constituency

The Petitioner alleged that Respondent No. 1 committed a "corrupt practice" under Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 ("RP Act"), by furnishing false information and concealing material facts regarding his educational qualifications in his Form 26 affidavit

During the pendency of the petition, fresh elections were held in 2025

A learned Single Judge referred the matter to a Larger Bench to determine if the petition was infructuous or if the alleged non-disclosure constituted a corrupt practice that could lead to disqualification under Section 8A

1. Whether the non-disclosure or false declaration of a candidate's own educational qualifications in an affidavit attracts the provisions of "corrupt practice" under Section 123(4) of the RP Act

2. Whether the election petition is rendered infructuous following the expiry of the relevant legislative term and the holding of subsequent general elections

Section 123(4) of the RP Act, which defines corrupt practice as the publication of false statements regarding the personal character or conduct of "any candidate" calculated to prejudice "that candidate's" prospects

Supreme Court's decision in Ajmera Shyam v. Smt. Kova Laksmi (2025), which distinguished between the non-disclosure of criminal antecedents (substantial) and educational qualifications (often non-substantial or technical)

Section 83 of the RP Act, requiring strict and precise pleadings for allegations of corrupt practice

The Court analyzed the four components of Section 123(4) and concluded that the provision is intended to penalize false statements made by a candidate against an opponent to prejudice the opponent's chances

It held that a candidate making a statement about their own qualifications cannot fall under Section 123(4) because one would not reasonably calculate a statement to prejudice their own prospects

The Court noted that while Section 123(2) (undue influence) might have been relevant, the Petitioner specifically pleaded Section 123(4) and the Court cannot suo moto substitute legal provisions in election law, which requires strict interpretation

Furthermore, following Ajmera Shyam, the Court observed that educational qualification discrepancies are generally not "defects of substantial character" sufficient to nullify a mandate or constitute corrupt practice

The Court specifically overruled the prior decision in Nand Ram Bagri v. Jai Kishan to the extent it held that a candidate's false statement about themselves fell under Section 123(4)

Consequently, as the alleged conduct did not meet the statutory definition of corrupt practice, the question of a six-year disqualification under Section 8A did not arise

Since the legislative term in question had ended and fresh elections were held in 2025, the Court held the election petition to be infructuous

The matter was directed to be listed before the Single Judge for formal disposal