False declaration regarding framing of charges and criminal antecedents constitutes undue influence, rendering an election void.

The Election Petitioner, a multi-term former MLA, contested the 2024 bye-election for Assembly Constituency 02 Vijaypur on a BJP ticket after resigning from the Indian National Congress.

Respondent No. 1 (Mukesh Malhotra) contested and won the seat on an Indian National Congress ticket.

The Petitioner challenged the election on the ground that Respondent No. 1 suppressed material criminal antecedents in his Form 26 affidavit.

Specifically, Respondent No. 1 declared "No" regarding the framing of charges in two pending cases (RCT 972/2022 and RCT 1051/2023) and labeled the allegations as "verbal altercation," whereas judicial orders proved charges were already framed for offenses including criminal intimidation and physical assault.

Additionally, Respondent No. 1 failed to disclose a prior conviction in a Forest Act case involving the illegal felling of 210 trees and two other acquittals.

1. Whether the incomplete or incorrect disclosure of pending criminal cases and the stage of trial (framing of charges) in the Form 26 affidavit amounts to a corrupt practice under Section 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

2. Whether the non-disclosure of criminal cases resulting in conviction of less than one year or acquittal constitutes a violation of mandatory disclosure requirements.

The court applied Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which mandates the disclosure of pending cases where charges are framed for offenses punishable by two years or more, and convictions resulting in one year or more of imprisonment.

It relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms, establishing the voter's fundamental right to know a candidate's criminal antecedents under Article 19(1)(a).

The court further applied principles from Krishnamoorthy v. Siva Kumar and Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India, which hold that the suppression of criminal antecedents constitutes "undue influence" and a corrupt practice under Section 123(2), rendering an election void under Section 100(1)(b).

The court also noted that under PUCL v. Union of India, Section 33B was struck down, ensuring that the right to information cannot be restricted by statute.

The Court found that Respondent No. 1, a law graduate (LL.B.), willfully provided false information by stating "No" to the framing of charges and "Not Applicable" to the date of charges in his affidavit.

The Court rejected the "bonafide mistake" defense, noting that the framing of charges is a critical judicial stage where a magistrate finds "grave suspicion" of guilt; thus, suppressing this stage misleads the electorate.

Regarding "Group 1" cases, the Court observed that describing assaults on victims (including women) as mere "verbal altercations" was a deliberate attempt to sanitize his image.

While Section 33A(1)(ii) technically only requires disclosure of convictions over one year, the Court emphasized that for "Group 2" (Forest Act conviction), the respondent admitted the local Adivasi population worships trees, and his failure to disclose the felling of 210 trees was a strategic suppression of a "moral turpitude" offense to avoid electoral backlash.

The court determined that such "disinformation" prevents the exercise of an "informed choice" by voters, which per Krishnamoorthy, automatically constitutes undue influence without needing to prove the result was "materially affected".

The High Court declared the election of Respondent No. 1 from Assembly Constituency 02 Vijaypur null and void.

Further, as the Petitioner secured the second-highest votes and the disqualification of the returned candidate made him the only validly remaining choice, the Court declared Petitioner Ram Niwas Rawat as the duly elected MLA.

The Election Commission was directed to complete the formalities accordingly.