Non-disclosure of a pending criminal case renders nomination acceptance improper and the election void.

The appellant’s nomination for a local panchayat election was scrutinized and accepted by the Returning Officer without objection from Respondent No. 3 or any other candidate. The appellant was declared elected after securing the highest number of votes, reportedly 2,174 votes against Respondent No. 3’s 1,672 votes.

Respondent No. 3 subsequently filed an election petition under Section 122 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, alleging suppression of pending criminal proceedings, government and cooperative-bank dues, proceedings relating to the Jal Upbhogta Sansthan, and other financial and property-related information.

The Election Tribunal/Collector declared the appellant’s election void on the ground that material particulars had not been disclosed in the nomination form and accompanying affidavit. The appellant challenged that decision in a writ petition, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 18.03.2026 in W.P. No. 1252 of 2026.

The Division Bench condoned the 43-day delay in filing the writ appeal and proceeded to decide the appeal on merits.

Whether failure to disclose a criminal case pending on the date of filing the nomination amounted to non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of Rule 31-A of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995, justifying rejection of the nomination and invalidation of the election?

Whether the absence of an objection during scrutiny barred Respondent No. 3 from subsequently challenging the improper acceptance of the appellant’s nomination under Rule 21 of the Election Petition Rules, 1995?

Whether the Collector acted without jurisdiction by obtaining an enquiry report from the Sub-Divisional Officer, and whether the proceedings were vitiated by denial of notice, non-supply of the report, or violation of natural justice?

Whether the alleged non-disclosure materially affected the election result, particularly in view of the appellant’s margin of victory, and whether the omission could be treated as a minor or technical defect?

The Court applied Section 122 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 and Rules 11 and 21 of the Election Petition Rules, 1995, concerning election petitions, their enquiry, and challenges to improper acceptance of nominations.

Rule 31-A of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995 was treated as mandatory, requiring truthful disclosure of prescribed particulars, including pending criminal cases and relevant liabilities.

Relying on Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms, (2002) 5 SCC 294, People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 399, Poonam v. Dule Singh, (2026) 3 SCC 732, and Rakesh Pandey v. Rishiraj Mishra, the Court held that voters are entitled to material information necessary to make an informed electoral choice.

The Court also held, applying the principle in Sahani Silk Mills (P) Ltd. v. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, (1994) 5 SCC 346, that obtaining an administrative enquiry report did not amount to impermissible sub-delegation where the Collector independently considered the record and decided the election petition.

The Court found that a criminal case was pending against the appellant on 04.06.2022, the date on which the nomination form and affidavit were filed, whereas the appellant was acquitted only on 13.10.2022; the subsequent acquittal therefore did not cure the failure to disclose the case as it existed on the relevant date.

The appellant’s statement of “Nil” in the relevant columns was consequently incomplete and incorrect. The Court further noted that the Collector had found suppression not only of the pending criminal case but also of a recovery order for ₹13,55,146 and an MMDR Act penalty of ₹2,40,000, including the absence of disclosure regarding payment of the penalty.

These omissions were material statutory disclosures and could not be regarded as minor defects; they went to the eligibility and transparency requirements governing the nomination process.

The absence of an objection at scrutiny did not prevent a subsequent election challenge under Rule 21. Since the improperly accepted nomination was that of the returned candidate himself, the Court held that the result was materially affected in law: had the nomination been rejected, the appellant could not have contested or been elected. Accordingly, the margin of votes was immaterial.

The procedural objections also failed because the appellant had filed a reply and was heard by the Collector, who independently considered the material rather than mechanically adopting the SDO’s report. The Court therefore found no jurisdictional error, denial of natural justice, perversity, or manifest illegality in the decisions below.

The nomination was therefore improperly accepted, and the appellant’s subsequent acquittal and electoral margin did not validate the nomination or prevent invalidation of the election.

The Court dismissed Writ Appeal No. 2757 of 2026, affirmed the order of the learned Single Judge and the Election Tribunal’s order declaring the appellant’s election invalid, and made no order as to costs.