Karnataka High Court
Dr. Ramesh Babu V M vs Smt. Roopakala M on 16 January, 2025
Author: Krishna S.Dixit
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:1607
EP No. 3 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
ELECTION PETITION NO. 3 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
DR. RAMESH BABU V M,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA,
NO.29, UPPUKUNTE VILLAGE,
SUGATUR POST & HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. R SHASHI KUMAR.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. ROOPAKALA M,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
W/O J E SHASHIDHAR,
Digitally signed
RESIDING AT NO.1326, 3RD CROSS,
by SHARADA GEETHA ROAD EXTENSION,
VANI B VIVEK NAGAR, KGF - 563 122.
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF 2. ASHWINI SAMPANGI,
KARNATAKA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
W/O DINESH R V,
FIRST BLOCK, NEW EXTENSION,
SANTHE GATE, BETHAMANGALA,
KGF TALUK - 563 116.
3. KODANDA R,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
S/O RAMAPPA,
NO.32, DALAVAYE HOSAHALLI,
KGF TALUK - 56 122.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:1607
EP No. 3 of 2023
4. R GAGGANA SUKANYA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
W/O GOVINDAIAH,
KONDARAJANAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK - 563 101.
5. THANGARAJ P,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
S/O PONNAN,
NO.177, CORONATION TOWN,
ROBERSONPET, KGF - 563 122.
6. JOTHI BASH R,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
S/O RAMASWAMY,
NO.M021, SMITH ROAD,
MARKIKUPPAM POST,
KGF - 563 122.
7. S RAJENDRAN,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
S/O SITARAMAN,
DOOR NO.40, OPPOSITE ST. TERESA'S SCHOOL,
3RD CROSS ROAD, ROBERSONPET, KGF - 563 122.
8. V KALAVATHI,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
D/O P VENKATAIAH,
NO.1544/5, WARD NO.31,
MADAN BUILDING, CORONATION TOWN,
ROBERSONPET, KGF - 563 122.
9. DR. JOSHUA M E RAJAN,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
S/O MADALAI MUTHU MANI,
DOOR NO.1273/1, B M ROAD,
CORONATION TOWN, ROBERSONPET,
KGF -563 122.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAGHUPATHY K., ADVOCATE AND
SRI. R HEMANTH RAJ., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. HANAMANTHARAJU K., ADVOCATE FOR R7;
R2 TO R6, R8 & R9 ARE SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:1607
EP No. 3 of 2023
THIS ELECTION PETITION IS PRESENTED UNDER
SECTIONS 80, 81 R/W SECTION 100 OF THE
REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLES ACT, 1951, BY DR.RAMESH
BABU.V.M PETITIONER-CANDIDATE ALONGWITH HIS
COUNSEL SRI.SHASHIKUMAR.R (ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER)
BEFORE THE REGISTRAR (JUDICIAL) ON 23.06.2023, (THE
PROCEEDINGS OF REGISTRAR (JUDICIAL) IS AT PAGE NO.6 OF
THE PETITION), CHALLENGING THE ELECTION OF
RESPONDENTS SMT.ROOPAKALA.M AND OTHERS, FROM 146-
KOLAR GOLD FIELD (SC) ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY, KOLAR
DISTRICT, TO THE KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2023
AND THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO -i) DECLARE THE ELECTION
OF THE RETURNED CANDIDATE I.E., FIRST RESPONDENT
SMT.ROOPKALA.M FROM 146-KOLAR GOLD FIELD (SC)
ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY OF KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY 2023 AS NULL AND VOID AND SET ASIDE.II) THE
FIRST RESPONDENT SMT.ROOPAKALA.M IS DECLARED TO BE
DISQUALIFIED FROM CONTESTING THE ELECTIONS.
THIS IA NO.3/2024 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 81,83,86
AND 87 OF THE REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLES ACT,1951 R/W
ORDER 6 RULE 16 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE,1908
PRAYING TO STRIKE OUT ALL SENTENCES OF THE PARAGRAPH
NOS. 1 TO 24, AND PRAYER OF THE ELECTION PETITION IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS IA NO.4/2024 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 81,83 AND
86 OF THE REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLES ACT,1951 R/W
ORDER 7 RULE 11 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE,1908
PRAYING TO DISMISS THE PRESENT ELECTION PETITION IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS ELECTION PETITION ALONG WITH I.A.NOS.3 & 4
/2024 HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS,
THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:1607
EP No. 3 of 2023CAV ORDER
This petition lays a challenge to the election of 1st
Respondent – Smt.Roopakala M (hereafter called ‘Returned
Candidate’) from 146-Kolar Gold Field (SC) Constituency
of Karnataka Legislative Asembly-2023. Petitioner has also
sought for a declaration to disqualify the Returned
Candidate from contesting the elections, on the fault
grounds. The petition is structured on the principal
grounds, succinctly stated as under:
(a) Improper acceptance of nomination papers of
the Returned Candidate by the Returning Officer though
her name did not figure in the electoral roll; she had not
affixed the nomination paper along with Affidavit in Form
26 in a conspicuous place for the sight of voters,
candidates & the public at large.
(b) Returned Candidate gave false & misleading
information about her criminal antecedents i.e., her
conviction for the offences in Crime No.125/2023; she has
also withheld material particulars of the criminal case and
the criminal appeal.
(c) Returned Candidate failed to disclose ‘important
material details of movable assets’, bank deposits of
herself & her spouse, particulars of bank, account number,
nature of account & of deposit. These pertain to Rs.50 lakh
as Staff Advances (ITC), Rs.55 lakh of market due,
Rs.4,12,00,000/- stock-in trade, other current assets and
also particulars of jewellery, bullion & such other
valuables.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:1607
EP No. 3 of 2023
(d) Returned Candidate has failed to furnish correct
information pertaining to agricultural & non-agricultural
lands and residential buildings owned by herself & by her
spouse. She ought to have mentioned full particulars of
sale transactions such as mode & cost of acquisition, areal
extent of properties, etc.
(e) Returned Candidate has not correctly stated
about her educational qualifications & details of
dependants, in the Affidavits that accompany her
Nomination Papers and the same amounts to suppression
of material particulars required of legal disclosure.
(f) Lastly, the Returned Candidate has failed to
maintain true, correct & separate account of election
expenditure and has not furnished details of separate
election account in the Affidavit, as prescribed in the
Conduct of Election Rules and extant ECI Notifications.
2. After service of notice, Returned Candidate and
others have entered appearance through their counsel.
Respondent No.9 has filed his Written Statement on
09.10.2023 supporting the case of Petitioner and seeking
invalidation of the election. Returned Candidate has also
filed a Written Statement on 16.12.2023, resisting the
petition. She has moved the subject two applications viz.,
the one for striking off the pleadings of petitioner and the
other for the rejection of petition for want of cause of
action. Petitioner has filed his Objections to these
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:1607
EP No. 3 of 2023
applications. This court vide order dated 2.2.2024
recorded the unanimous submission of all, that the
pleadings have been completed and the time for filing
pleadings by others has statutorily lapsed. Therefore,
matter was posted for the inspection of documents. I am
told at the Bar that this inspection has been done.
Contesting parties have filed the draft issues.
2.1. Though it is not much pertinent for the
adjudication of the subject applications, the order entered
on 22.03.2024 is reproduced for keeping the record of the
proceedings open.
“ORDER ON I.A.Nos.1 & 2/2024
Application in I.A.No.1/2024 seeking impleadment is
only for the limited purpose of seeking a direction for
release of the EVMs for the elections that are
imminent. All the learned advocates appearing for the
parties eo nomine stand tall before the court and say
that regardless of maintainability of such applications
for impleadment & direction, they have no objection
for the release of EVMs. The court also understands
the difficulty of conducting elections without adequate
number of EVMs and that the retention of EVMs is not
required, as submitted by all advocates appearing for
the parties for adjudication of the petition in question.
The court also notes that the case does not involve
recounting of the votes.
In view of the above, the District Election Officer or
such other officer concerned is directed to release the
subject EVMs to the office of Chief Electoral Officer,
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:1607
EP No. 3 of 2023Karnataka, Bangalore, subject to the condition that if
& when required, the same shall be produced for
inspection.
Ordered accordingly and both the applications in
I.A.Nos.1 & 2/2024 are disposed off…”
3. BRIEF FACTS:
3.1. The process of General Elections to the Karnataka
State Legislative Assembly commenced with the issuance
of Calendar of Events by the ECI vide Notification dated
13.04.2023; its particulars as furnished by the Petitioner
in a tabular form are as under:
Event Schedule Date
Start of Filing of nomination 13.04.2023
Last Date for filing nomination 20.04.2023
Date of Scrutiny of nomination 21.04.2023
Last Date for Withdrawal of 24.04.2023
nomination
Date of poll 10.05.2023
Date of Counting of Votes 13.05.2023
3.2. In all, there were ten candidates in the electoral fray
and two of them were Independents. Polling took place on
10.05.2023. Returning Officer declared/announced the
election results on 13.05.2023. Following table gives a
thumb nail sketch of the scenario:
Sl.No Name of Candidate Party Votes secured
1 Aswini Sampangi BJP 31102
2 Kodanda R BSP 260
3 R Gaggana Sukanya AAP 278
4 Thangaraj P CPI (M) 1008
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:1607
EP No. 3 of 2023
5 Dr. Ramesh Babu JDS 1360
VM
6 Roopakala M INC 81569
7 Jothi Bash. R CPI 918
8 S.Rajendran RPI (Karnataka) 29795
9 V. Kalavathi Independent 182
10 Dr.Joshua M E Rajan Independent 196
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
on the subject applications and having perused the case
papers and also having adverted to relevant of the Rulings
cited at the Bar, this Court is inclined to allow the subject
applications for the following reasons:
4.1. A BROAD LEGAL POSITION AS TO PLEADINGS
IN AN ELECTION PETITION:
(i) An Election Petition is a statutory proceeding of
peculiar nature to which the common law and the
principles of equity remain as strangers unless they are
statutorily embodied. To it apply only those rules which
the statute makes. Such statute is the Representation of
People Act, 1951 and the Rules promulgated thereunder;
in other words, the law of election is what the statutes
enacts. This view gains support from JYOTI BASU vs.
DEBI GHOSAL1. That being said, ordinarily, the
insignificant technicalities in the matter of pleadings are
liable to be ignored in adjudging the validity of elections of
1
AIR 1982 SC 983
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:1607
EP No. 3 of 2023
the kind vide PONNALA LAKSHMAIAH Vs. KOMMURI
PRATAP REDDY2.
(ii) Petitioner in addition to seeking invalidation of
election of Returned Candidate prays ‘The first respondent
Smt. Roopakala M is declared to be disqualified from
contesting the respondents.’ Sec. 83(1)(a) of the 1951 Act
prescribes that an election petition shall contain a concise
statement of material facts on which the petitioner has
founded his challenge; ‘material facts’ are those which
taken at their face value not only will have a cause of
action but also entitle the petitioner to the grant of relief
which he has prayed for. In other words, all those facts
which clothe the petition with a choate or complete cause
of action are termed as material facts, in election
jurisprudence. Failure to plead any material fact renders
the challenge to an election of the kind, bad.
(iii) The law of elections & election disputes in India, to a
considerable extent has grown precedent by precedent, by
legislative process in addition. Challenge to an election, be
it to the Parliament or to the State Legislatures, is treated
as a serious matter. An election cannot be set at naught
unless a fool proof case is made out vide SANTOSH
YADAV vs. NARENDAR SINGH3. This is done to ensure
2
(2012) 7 SCC 788
3
(2002) 1 SCC 160
– 10 –
NC: 2025:KHC:1607
EP No. 3 of 2023
that the Sword of Damocles is not kept hanging over the
head of victorious candidates unnecessarily and without
point or purpose. Added, election in a country like ours,
involves huge expenditure, time & energy. A popular
mandate culminating in the electoral result, therefore,
cannot be lightly brushed aside.
(iv) When a challenge to an election is founded on the
ground of non-disclosure of relevant information mandated
by law, in the nomination papers and more particularly in
the Affidavit in Form 26, law mandates that both the
‘material facts’ and ‘material particulars’ are to be pleaded.
At times, there may be some overlapping between these
two, is true; nevertheless, difference lies between them,
cannot be disputed. This difference is like a boundary
dispute, which obviously is not as to the existence of the
boundary but is as to where exactly the boundary line lies.
Material facts would mean all the fundamental facts
constituting the ingredients of the required averment,
which the petitioner has to substantiate in order to
succeed. The proven test to identify a fact as the ‘material
fact’ is to ask oneself whether in the absence of such a
fact, relief sought for in the petition can be granted.
(v) ‘Material particulars’ on the other hand are the details
of the case set up by the parties which are necessary to
amplify, refine & embellish the material facts pleaded in
– 11 –
NC: 2025:KHC:1607
EP No. 3 of 2023
the petition. In a way they are decorative details of
material facts. ‘Particulars’ serve the purpose of finishing
touches to the basic contours of a picture already drawn,
to make it full, more detailed and more informative. The
function of ‘particulars’ is to present as full a picture of the
case brought before the court as to make the opposite
party understand and to meet it. While the failure to plead
material facts is fatal to the election petition and no
amendment of the pleading could be allowed for
introducing the material facts after the expiry of limitation
period prescribed by law for filing the election petition, the
absence of material particulars can be cured even at a
later stage by an appropriate amendment vide
L.R.SHIVARAMAGOWDA Vs. T.M.CHANDRASHEKAR4.
(vi) There is yet another aspect of law which the petition
at hand attracts: As already mentioned above, there are
two prayers viz invalidation of the election of Returned
Candidate and further declaration that she be ‘disqualified
from contesting the election’. However, if the petitioner
alleges that there was improper acceptance of any
nomination paper [sec.100(1)(d)(ii)] or that there was
non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution, Act
or any Rules [vide sec. 100(1)(d)(iv)], petitioner has to
plead and prove that the result of election insofar as it
4
(1999) 1 SCC 666
– 12 –
NC: 2025:KHC:1607
EP No. 3 of 2023
concerns the Returned Candidate has been materially
affected by such improper acceptance or non-compliance.
In PEOPLE’S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES vs. UNION
OF INDIA5, this view has been broadly affirmed caveating
that the direction to reject the nomination papers for
furnishing wrong information or concealing material
information and verification of assets and liabilities by
means of a summary inquiry at the time of scrutiny of the
nominations cannot be readily given. Of course, in
S.RUKMINI MADEGOWDA vs. STATE ELECTION
COMMISSION6, this view is to some extent relaxed, is
also true, as rightly contended by petitioner’s counsel. In
light of this position of law, the subject applications need
to be treated keeping in view only the petition averments
and the accompanying documents.
4.2 A BRIEF SKETCH OF THE PETITION:
(i) Petition Paragraphs 1 & 2 of the petition mention about
commencement of election process, issuance of calendar
of events vide Notification dated 13.04.2023 and filing of
Nomination Papers inter alia by Respondent No.1 on
19.04.2023 from the reserved constituency. Paragraph 3
mentions about ten candidates that were in the fray;
paragraph 4 mentions that the polling took place on
5
AIR 1997 SC568
6
(2022) 12 SCR 1
– 13 –
NC: 2025:KHC:1607
EP No. 3 of 2023
10.05.2023; it states polling of votes in favour of each of
these candidates.
(ii) Petition Paragraph 5 states about declaration of
election results on 13.05.2023 by virtue of which the 1st
respondent emerged victorious in the electoral battle; it
also mentions about petitioner having secured copies of
Returned Candidate’s Affidavits dated 13.04.2023 &
17.04.2023 as uploaded by her to ECI website; petitioner
specifically states that he obtained certified copies of
Affidavit dated 13.04.2023 from KGF Taluk office.
(iii) Petition Paragraph 6 mentions about the filing of two
sets of Nomination Papers by the Returned Candidate on
23.04.2023 & 17.04.2023 along with Affidavits in Form-26
and that the same were uploaded to the ECI website.
Paragraph 7 mentions about declaration of election results
on 13.05.2023 and that the petitioner discovered the
discrepancies & falsities in the Returned Candidate’s
Affidavit dated 17.04.2023.
(iv) Petition Paragraph 8 alleges that the Returning
Officer had never affixed 1st respondent’s Nomination
Papers along with Affidavits ‘in a conspicuous place at the
office of Returning Officer for information to the electors…’
Paragraph 9 enlists the grounds (a) to (t) inter alia on
– 14 –
NC: 2025:KHC:1607
EP No. 3 of 2023
which challenge to the election of Returned Candidate is
structured.
(v) Petition Paragraphs 10 & 11 allege infirmities in the
day to day expenses of election and accounts
management as filed by the Returned Candidate and their
uploading to the website of District Electoral Officer.
Paragraphs 12 to 22 in the petition plead the grounds on
which invalidation of election is sought for. In paragraph
23, petitioner reserves right of amendment to his
pleadings and seeks leave to rely upon the documents in
support of his case.
(vi) Petition Paragraphs 24 to 28 relate to compliance of
protocol prescribed for filing of Election Petition. Paragraph
29 is the prayer column which essentially seeks
invalidation of 1st Respondent’s election and an order for
barring her from contesting in the elections.
4.3. AS TO IMPROPER ACCEPTANCE OF
NOMINATION PAPERS OF RETURNED CANDIDATE:
(i) Learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent
contended that the petition averment that the Returning
Officer had never affixed the Returned Candidate’s
Nomination Papers along with Affidavits in Form-26 dated
17.04.2023 in a conspicuous place of his office for the
information of electors, is falsified by the petition
– 15 –
NC: 2025:KHC:1607
EP No. 3 of 2023
averments in paragraphs 5, 6 & 7. Let me see what is
averred in these paragraphs: paragraph 5 mentions about
returned candidate’s election results declared on
13.05.2023; petitioner specifically admits that the two
Affidavits dated 13.04.2023 & 17.04.2023 accompanying
two sets of Nomination Papers were uploaded to the ECI
website by the Returning Officer for the information of the
electors/general public and that, petitioner downloaded
the same. It is also admitted in the petition that he had
obtained certified copy of one of these Affidavits in Form-
26 dated 13.04.2023. Paragraph 6 also mentions about
filing of two sets of Nomination Papers along with
Affidavits on 13.04.2023 and on 17.04.2023 and that the
same were uploaded to the ECI website by the Returning
Officer. Paragraph 8 mentions about non-affixing of these
Nomination Papers along with Affidavits in a conspicuous
place of the office of Returning Officer. At paragraph 9,
scrutiny process undertaken by the RO is mentioned and
also alleged abrupt & improper acceptance of the
Nomination Papers in breach of procedure prescribed u/s
36(2) of the R.P.Act. Petitioner has not whispered
anything about he having pointed out to the RO during the
scrutiny process, about the alleged non-affixture of
requisite documents filed by the Returned Candidate in a
conspicuous place in his office.
– 16 –
NC: 2025:KHC:1607
EP No. 3 of 2023
(ii) Added, petitioner has also not uttered one single
word as to how the alleged non-affixture has materially
affected the subject election; it is not his case that had the
Returned Candidate been in the electoral fray, at least
some of the votes she has secured would have gone to
other candidates and eventually, at least she would not
have been elected, as rightly contended by learned Sr.
Counsel appearing for the Returned Candidate. This stand
of the Returned Candidate gains support from the text of
section 100(1)(d) of the R.P. Act, as construed by the
Apex Court in KARIM UDDIN BARBHUIYA vs. AMINUL
HAQUE LASKAR7. An omnibus plea ‘that the RO abruptly
and improperly accepted the Nomination Papers of the
Returned Candidate without conducting proper scrutiny
process as envisaged under section 36(2)‘ of the R.P. Act,
would not satisfy the requirement of election law. The law
enacted in Section 33-A of 1951 Act requires that the
information furnished by the candidate in the form of
Affidavit shall be displayed in a conspicuous place in the
office of jurisdictional Returning Officer for the knowledge
of electors; there is a presumption in law that the
statutory functionaries duly discharge their official duties
in regular course; such a presumption enures to the
benefit of Returned Candidate, there being nothing to the
contra.
7
2024 SCC OnLine SC 509, paras 12-24
– 17 –
NC: 2025:KHC:1607
EP No. 3 of 2023
(iii) The fact remains that neither the Returning Officer
nor any electors have found the information furnished by
R-1 as being insufficient or incorrect. This apart, how the
alleged non-furnishing of the so called material
information has materially affected the electoral prospects
of the petitioner or of any other candidate, is also not
pleaded, such a plea being legally essential in view of the
fact that there were plural candidates in the electoral fray.
The Apex Court in MAIREMBAM PRITHVIRAJ vs.
PUKHREM SHARATCHANDRA SINGH8, at paragraph 26
has observed as under:
“Mere finding that there has been an improper
acceptance of the nomination is sufficient for a
declaration that the election is void under section
100(1)(d). There has to be further pleading and
proof that the result of the election of R-1 was
materially affected. But, there would be no
necessity of any proof in the event of the
nomination of a R-1 being declared as having
been improperly accepted, especially in a case
where there are only two candidates in the
fray…”
(iv) The petition averments at paragraph 9(a) that ‘…the
name of first respondent is not forthcoming in the electoral
roll’ and the Returning Officer having not properly
scrutinized the Nomination Papers & Affidavit, has wrongly
permitted the Returned Candidate to have been in the
8
(2017) 2 SCC 487
– 18 –
NC: 2025:KHC:1607
EP No. 3 of 2023
fray, are stoutly contested by the other side on the basis
of material on record. Petitioner has withheld the
information furnished by the Returned Candidate in the
Nomination Forms dated 13.04.2023 and 17.04.2023
inasmuch as he has not referred to the Annexure filed
along with the Nomination Forms, more particularly the
authentic copy of electors list. The petitioner has to
specifically aver what is the correct information that has
not been stated in the Nomination Papers accompanied by
Affidavits in the prescribed Form vide KANIMOZHI
KARUNANIDHI vs. A.SANTHANAKUMAR9. Name of the
Returned Candidate figures at Sl.No.305, Part 229. What
the petitioner has produced as documents at Annexures-B,
C & D are sectarian and that the requirement of section
65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has not been
complied with. If material information was lacking in the
Affidavit of R-1, it was open to the petitioner or other
respondents or any of the voters to solicit the said
information or to point out any information being
wrong/false, vide KISAN SHANKAR KATHORE vs. ARUN
DATTATREY SAWANT10. This aspect being a material
particular, has not been pleaded in the subject paragraphs
of the petition and therefore, they are liable to be struck
off.
9
2023 SCC OnLine SC 573
10
(2014) 14 SCC 162
– 19 –
NC: 2025:KHC:1607
EP No. 3 of 2023
(v) The Apex Court at paragraph 29 of the decision in
KISAN SHANKAR supra recognized the right of electors to
know about the credentials of their candidates, as a
fundamental right guaranteed u/a 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution since it flows from the concept of Democracy
and that where relevant information is not disclosed in the
Affidavit, the Returning Officer has the power coupled with
duty to direct the candidate to furnish the same; further, it
is also true that if the candidate fails to furnish despite
direction, his Nomination Papers can be rejected on that
ground per se; however, this power of Returning Officer to
reject the Nomination Papers must be exercised very
sparingly & cautiously. In the case at hands, no such
deficiency in the Affidavit was pointed out by any one and
much less any direction was issued by the Returning
Officer to make good any alleged deficiency.
4.4 NON-DISCLOSURE ABOUT CRIMINAL
ANTECEDENTS OF RETURNED CANDIDATE:
(i) The Apex Court in PUBLIC INTEREST FOUNDATION
vs. UOI11 observed that in a democratic system, the best
available candidates should not have criminal antecedents
and that the electors have a right to know such
antecedents of persons in the electoral fray. It also
recognized that for a constitutional democracy,
11
(2018) 10 SCR 141
– 20 –
NC: 2025:KHC:1607
EP No. 3 of 2023
criminalization of politics is extremely disastrous. At para
116 of the decision, it laid down the following rudimentary
principles for cleansing the system:
“Keeping the aforesaid in view, we think it
appropriate to issue the following directions
which are in accord with the decisions of this
Court :-
(i) Each contesting candidate shall fill up the
form as provided by the Election Commission
and the form must contain all the particulars as
required therein.
(ii) It shall state, in bold letters, with regard to
the criminal cases pending against the
candidate.
(iii) If a candidate is contesting an election on
the ticket of a particular party, he/she is
required to inform the party about the criminal
cases pending against him/her.
(iv) The concerned political party shall be
obligated to put up on its website the aforesaid
information pertaining to candidates having
criminal antecedents.
(v) The candidate as well as the concerned
political party shall issue a declaration in the
widely circulated newspapers in the locality
about the antecedents of the candidate and also
give wide publicity in the electronic media.
When we say wide publicity, we mean that
the same shall be done at least thrice after filing
of the nomination papers.”
– 21 –
NC: 2025:KHC:1607
EP No. 3 of 2023
To some extent, this requirement was legislatively diluted
by enacting section 33B in the 1951 Act and that came to
be liquidated by the Apex Court in PUCL vs. UOI12
eventually resulting into the ECI promulgating the
guidelines inter alia for disclosing criminal antecedents of
candidates vide Notification dated 10.10.2018. Learned
counsel for the petitioner pressed all this into service.
(ii) The petition averments at paragraphs 9(b), (c), (d),
(o) & (p) relate to non-disclosure of relevant information
by the Returned Candidate about her criminal antecedents
in the Affidavits in the prescribed Form. The Returned
Candidate has mentioned about the pending criminal cases
against her, keeping open the column of conviction ‘blank’
specifically stating that the same was not applicable to her
inasmuch as, she had not been convicted in any of the
criminal cases. Accordingly, she had endorsed ‘Nil” in para
11(6) of Part ‘B’ of the Affidavit. This is absolutely correct.
(iii) Crime No.125/2023 was registered for the offences
punishable under sections 3 & 6 of the Essential
Commodities Act, 1955. The same has been quashed by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court in Returned Candidate’s
Crl.P.No.2435/2023 disposed off on 16.06.2023. The other
criminal case i.e., Spl.C.30769/2021 concerning Railway
12
(2003) 4 SCC 399
– 22 –
NC: 2025:KHC:1607
EP No. 3 of 2023
offences also came to be quashed by another Coordinate
Bench in Crl.P.No.8718/2021 vide order dated 8.12.2023.
(iv) The certified copies of Coordinate Benches’ orders are
placed on record with leave of this Court sans any
objection from the side of petitioner. These subsequent
developments emerging from the Court orders also
support that the Returned Candidate has furnished
requisite information about the alleged criminal
antecedents, in her Affidavits accompanying the
Nomination Papers, in terms of section 33A of the R.P.Act,
1951. Therefore, petitioner’s reliance on BHIM RAO
BASWANTH RAO PATIL vs. K.MADAN MOHAN RAO13
does not come to his aid.
(v) Learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the Returned
Candidate is right in contending that the information
gathered by the petitioner based on which the averment in
relation to non-disclosure of criminal antecedents of his
client is taken up, is ‘truncated’ one. Added, petitioner has
not disclosed the source of this information either, and on
that count also, there is a palpable lacuna in the petition in
the light of what has been observed in
V.NARAYANASWAMY vs. C.P.THIRUNAVUKKARASU14.
13
(2023) 9 S.C.R 1218
14
(2000) 2 SCC 294, para 23
– 23 –
NC: 2025:KHC:1607
EP No. 3 of 2023
4.5 AS TO NON-DISCLOSURE OF FULL
INFORMATION ABOUT MOVABLE PROPERTY:
(i) The petition averments at paras 9(e) to (i) relate to
alleged non-disclosure of material particulars of movable
assets namely the bank accounts of the Returned
Candidate & her spouse and also non-disclosure of
material information relating to gold & silver articles.
Petitioner avers at paragraphs (e), (f) & (h) that the
Returned Candidate at column No.2 has mentioned about
the deposit of Rs.7 lakh in SBI-KCDCC Apex Bank and in
column No.3, the deposit of Rs.2 lakh standing in the
name of her husband who happens to be in public
employment. Similarly, she has mentioned at para (f)
about the Returned Candidate showing Rs.50 lakh as Staff
Advance (ITC) and Rs.55 lakh as being the market due
(ITC business). He complains that the Returned Candidate
has not furnished full details of the company, firm or
individual to whom she has given loan. At para (h),
petitioner avers that the Returned Candidate has failed to
disclose the relevant details for showing a sum of
Rs.4,12,00,000/- as stock in trade and other current
assets at paragraph 7A(viii) of the Affidavit. Let me
examined all this.
– 24 –
NC: 2025:KHC:1607
EP No. 3 of 2023
(ii) Annexure-B to the petition is the Affidavit of the
Returned Candidate in Form-26 dated 13.04.2023.
Annexure-C is also Affidavit of the said candidate dated
11.04.2023. In para 7, the Returned Candidate has given
the information relating to movable assets at Para-A. The
same consists of bank deposits, investments in
bonds/debentures/shares/Insurance Policy, details of loans
& dues and vehicles. Petitioner has mistaken one aspect of
the matter: Para 11(8) of Part B of the Affidavit is an
abstract statement mentioning the total value of the
movable assets of her spouse and the details are also
furnished.
(iii) The tabular form which contains the material
information as furnished by the Returned Candidate is
reproduced below for ease of reference:
A. Details of movable assets.
Sl. Description Self Spouse Depen Depen Depen
No. dent-1 dent-2 dent-3
(i) Cash in hand 20 lakhs 1 lakh Nil Nil Nil
(ii) Details of 7,00,000/- 2.00 lakhs Nil Nil Nil
deposit in Bank (SBI-KCDCC
accounts (FDRs, APEX BANK)
Term
Depositions and
all other types of
deposits
including
savings
accounts),
Deposits with
Financial
Institutions,
Non-Banking
Financial
companies and
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1607
EP No. 3 of 2023
Cooperative
societies and the
amount in each
such deposit
(iii) Details of (1) Capital Nil Nil Nil Nil
investment in account in
Bonds, Bhuvan
Debenture/Shar Enterprises
es and units in 2.09 Crores
companies/Mutu (2)Annapurnes
al Funds and hwari
other and the Beverages
amount. Rs.44.00 lakhs.
3) Shree Janani
Indian Designs
Exports Pvt ltd
9,90,000/-
(iv) Details of 1) EXIDE Nil Nil Nil Nil
investment in LIFE
NSS, Postal INSURANCE RS
Saving, 10 LAKHS PER
Insurance YEAR.
Policies and 2) LIC RS
investment in 12000 PER
any Financial YEAR
instruments in
Post Office or
Insurance
Company and
the amount.
(v) Personal Staff advances Nil Nil Nil Nil
loans/advances (ITC) 50.00
given to any lakhs
person or entity Market due
including firm, (ITC Business)
company, Trust 55.00 lakhs
etc,., and other
receivable from
debtors and the
amount.
(vi) Motor 1) Make 1) SWIFT Nil Nil Nil
Vehicles/Aircraft Toyota- DeZIRE-
s yachts/ships Reg.No. KA-03- REG.NO.KA-
(details of make, AK-0099 32.00 03MS117
registration Lakhs (2021- RS 7.5
number, etc., 22) LAKHS
year of purchase 2) Make (2014-15)
and amount) Toyota Innova 2) HYUNDA
Reg. No.KA- CRETA
02-MK-4428 REG.NO.KA-
(2014-2015) 02 MP 9198
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1607
EP No. 3 of 2023
25.00 Lakhs. RS 17.30
3) Other LAKHS
movable assets (2021-22)
(In ITC)
Business Rs.
50.00 Lakhs.
(Vii) Jewellary, 500 grams 250 grams Nil Nil Nil
bullion and 15.00 lakhs 12.50 lakhs
valuable thing(s)
(give details of
weight and
value)
(Viii) Any other assets Stock in Trade Nil Nil Nil Nil
such as value of & other current
claims/interest Assets
4,12,00,000/-
(ix) Gross total value 9,39,02,000/- 40,30,000/-
(iv) A perusal of Affidavits dated 13.4.2023 & 17.4.2023
would show that the Returned Candidate has furnished
material information about the loans: Rs.20 lakh is from
Toyota Finance Car Loan: her spouse’s Rs.34 lakh is taken
by way of Housing Loan; she has borrowed Rs.15 lakh
from Meghana Selve Shekar and Rs.80 lakh from
Mr.S.Srinivas. She has also mentioned at Para 8(ii) of the
Affidavit that neither she nor her spouse owes any dues to
the government in respect of the headings mentioned in
the said paragraph. The endorsement ‘Nil’ can be seen
even by a naked eye.
(v) Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Returned
Candidate is justified in contending that whatever has
been pleaded by the petitioner is again on the basis of
truncated information extracted from only a part of
– 27 –
NC: 2025:KHC:1607
EP No. 3 of 2023
Affidavit in the prescribed Form, which the petitioner
admittedly has downloaded from the website of ECI/RO.
4.6 AS TO RETURNED CANDIDATE NOT DISCLOSING
CORRECT MATERIAL PARTICULARS OF IMMOVABLE
PROPERTIES, IN THE AFFIDAVITS:
(i) Para 7B(i), column (ii) of the Affidavit mentions
about agricultural lands in Sy.No.54 of Hirenandi village,
H.D.Kote Taluk; it was purchased vide sale deed dated
2.2.2015. The land in Sy.No.12/8 of Giddenahalli in
Madugiri Taluk, was purchased vide sale deed dated
27.4.2016. The extents of these lands are also specifically
mentioned in the Affidavit. She has also mentioned
another sale deed dated 15.2.2015. She has offered
explanation as to how the particulars of this transaction
came to be deleted by the typographer while editing the
entries. Since all the three sale deeds are specifically
mentioned, it was open to the electors and the candidates
to tap information by seeking inspection of the same even
in the office of the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar. Therefore,
it cannot be gainfully argued that the Returned Candidate
has not disclosed material information.
(ii) The Returned Candidate has given full particulars of
non-agricultural properties acquired vide sale deeds dated
15.12.2011, 17.5.2014, 14.8.2015 & 18.5.2020. The
extent, value & location of these properties are also
– 28 –
NC: 2025:KHC:1607
EP No. 3 of 2023
stated, in so many words. Petitioner fails to see that in
respect of site Nos.1 & 2 at Kannampalli village, there is
one common one sale deed dated 15.12.2011. Affidavit
also mentions the flat owned by her spouse with full
details as to built-up area, carpet area, etc. Therefore,
petitioner is not justified in complaining that material
information has been suppressed in the Affidavits.
4.7 AS TO NON-DISCLOSURE OF EDUCATIONAL
QUALIFICATIONS AND DETAILS OF DEPENDENTS:
(i) The first allegation that the Returned Candidate has
not disclosed her educational qualification correctly, is not
true, to say the least. The Affidavit accompanying the
Nomination Form at Part B, para 11 specifically states that
the Returned Candidate has done her M.A. from Karnataka
State Open University, Mysore, during the year 2015-16.
This University is established under the provisions of
Karnataka State Open University Act, 1992. The Act and
the Statute promulgated thereunder are a matter of law.
They have certain unconventional provisions for the
University awarding certain academic degrees. How the
University functions and how degrees & diplomas are
awarded are a matter of law and ignorance in that regard
would not enure to the benefit of uninformed. What has
not been properly explained according to the petitioner,
remains a riddle wrapped in enigma.
– 29 –
NC: 2025:KHC:1607
EP No. 3 of 2023
(ii) It is not the case of petitioner that the Returned
Candidate has falsely mentioned degrees & diplomas
which she has not secured from the educational
institutions and as a consequence, the electors were
swayed away in casting their votes in her favour and this
has materially affected the election in question. It shall not
be construed to be saying that false or wrong mentioning
of educational credentials per se would go with impunity.
(iii) Paragraph (t) of the petition avers that the Returned
Candidate has failed to disclose particulars of the
dependants namely a son and a daughter and that the
Candidate has falsely mentioned ‘Nil’ in the column
relating to dependants. This averment is taken admittedly
on the basis of a News report published in Samyukta
Karnataka Daily Newspaper dated 5.6.2023. Petitioner
assumes that merely because the son of the Returned
Candidate is prosecuting studies in law, he is dependant.
He also assumes that the candidate’s daughter studying in
a college too is a dependant. This is too farfetched, to say
the least. Courts approach to the averments in an Election
Petition has to be a bit in variance with that to the plaint
averments in suit proceedings.
(iv) At this stage of the petition, a mini-trial is not being
held, is true. That being said, one cannot ignore what the
Apex Court observed about the authenticity of the
– 30 –
NC: 2025:KHC:1607
EP No. 3 of 2023
Newspaper reports in LAXMI RAJ SHETTY vs. STATE OF
TAMIL NADU15:
“…We cannot take judicial notice of the facts
stated in a news item being in the nature of
hearsay secondary evidence, unless proved by
evidence aliunde. A report in a newspapers is
only hearsay evidence. A newspaper is not one of
the documents referred to in s. 78(2) of the
Evidence Act, 1872 by which an allegation of fact
can be proved. The presumption of genuineness
attached under s. 81 of the Evidence Act to a
newspapers report cannot be treated as proved
of the facts reported therein.”
It is not the case of petitioner that they are minor children,
either. Petitioner except producing a copy of the said
Newspaper as Annexure-F has not done anything further.
Nothing is averred as to dependency of a son and a
daughter of the Returned Candidate. Added admittedly,
the father of these children is in public employment.
4.8 AS TO NOT MAINTAINING SEPARATE, TRUE &
CORRECT ACCOUNT OF ELECTION EXPENDITURE:
(A) Sections 73 & 77 of the 1951 Act enact a duty on the
person in the electoral fray to maintain a true & correct
and a separate account of election expenditure. After
scanning these provisions amongst other in ASHOK
SHANKARRAO CHAVAN VS MADHAVRAO15
AIR 1988 SC 1274,
– 31 –
NC: 2025:KHC:1607
EP No. 3 of 2023
KINHALKAR16, what the Apex observed in para 42 being
relevant, is reproduced:
” …When we read Section 77(1), it is
specified therein that every candidate should
keep a separate and correct account of all the
expenditure in connection with the election that
was incurred as between the date on which his
nomination was made and the date of
declaration of the result thereof i.e. inclusive of
both the dates. A careful reading of Section
77(1) makes it significantly clear that a
candidate contesting in an election, should
maintain a separate and correct account of all
expenditure incurred by him in connection with
the election. Section 73(3) makes it mandatory
that the total of the expenditure in connection
with an election should not exceed such amount
as may be prescribed. Here and now we can
point Special Leave PetitionC.A.5044 of 2014 [@
SLP (C) No.29882 of 2011] 51 of out that under
Rule 90 of the Rules, the total of the
expenditure that can be expended for which
account is to be maintained under Section
77 has been prescribed in a separate table
applicable to different States, in respect of their
Parliamentary Constituency and Assembly
Constituency. Therefore, reading Section
77(3) along with Rule 90 and Section 77(1),
what ultimately emerges is that every candidate
contesting in an election should maintain a
separate account relating to the election, that
such account should contain all the expenditures
incurred by him in connection with the election
and most importantly such details of the
account and the expenses incurred must reflect
the correct particulars apart from ensuring that16
(2014) 7 SCC 99
– 32 –
NC: 2025:KHC:1607
EP No. 3 of 2023
such expenditure does not exceed the maximum
limit prescribed under Rule 90 as stipulated
under Section 77(3).”
(B) In light of above exposition of law, let me examine
petition averments as to the Returned Candidate not
complying with the duty to disclose true & correct account
of election expenditure incurred by him.
(i) The petition averment at paragraph 10 reads as
under:
“That for the information the petitioner
downloaded the copy of Register for
Maintenance of Day to day Accounts of Election
Expenditure by Contesting Candidates (part-A)
from the Kolar District Administration website of
District Electoral Officer, Kolar Ditrict, uploaded
by the Returning officer, 146-Kolar gold Field
(SC), Assembly constituency of First
respondent. In this copy of document she
mentioned nil expenses on 17.04.2023 even
though she filed her second nomination paper
along with sworn affidavit in form 26 on
17.04.2023, is in violation of Section 77 of the
RP Act and thereby committed corrupt practice
under Section 123(6) of the RP Act. The
downloaded copy of the Register for
Maintenance of Day to day Accounts of Election
Expenditure of the first Respondent is produced
Annexure-G.”
(ii) The petition averment at paragraph 11 has the
following text:
– 33 –
NC: 2025:KHC:1607
EP No. 3 of 2023“The Petitioner further submits that, the first
respondent has failed to maintain Separate
Election Account for all expenditures in
connection with the election, even though she
has opened the separate S/B account at SBI,
KGF on 12.04.2023 and filed her first
Nomination papers on 13.04.2023 she has not
disclosed the details of the separate election
account in affidavit form 26 and failed to
maintain true and correct account of all
expenditures including nomination filing charges
in connection with the election, she filed her
second nomination paper along with Affidavit in
Form 26 on 17.04.2023 but the first respondent
failed to disclose the separate election account
details in her affidavit in form 26, thereby she
filed the false affidavit. The copy of SBI Account
opened by the 1st respondent on 12.04.2023 is
produced as Annexure-H.”
(iii) Petitioner in so many words at para 11 has
specifically averredly admitted that the Returned
Candidate “has opened the separate S/B account at SBI,
KGF on 12.04.2023…” The averments as to non-
mentioning of election expenditure are structured on the
basis of what is stated in the affidavits in Form 26
accompanying the Nomination Papers. As on the date of
filing the Nomination Papers, what expenditure has been
incurred by the Returned Candidate is not specified. The
deposit to be made as a precondition for being in the
electoral fray, arguably is not an expenditure. Learned Sr.
Advocate appearing for the Returned Candidate is more
than justified in contending that till date of filing of the
– 34 –
NC: 2025:KHC:1607
EP No. 3 of 2023
Nomination Papers, what is incurred as expenditure need
not be disclosed inasmuch as, a person acquires
candidature only after the filing of Nomination Papers. At
the stage of scrutiny of Nomination Papers, one cannot
expect the Returning Officer to undertake a roving enquiry
into the expenditure, regard being had to the nature of his
jurisdictional limits and shortness of the period between
the filing of Nomination Paper and undertaking of scrutiny.
In the above circumstances, the Applications in
I.A.No.3/2024 filed by the Returned Candidate having
been favoured, the petition averments at paras 5 to 22 &
29 are struck off. As a consequence & corollary, the
accompanying Application in I.A.No.4/2024 having been
allowed, the petition in E.P.No.3/2023 is rejected, costs
having been made easy.
This court places on record its deep appreciation for
the able research & assistance rendered by its official
Research Assistant Mr.Raghunandan K.S.
Sd/-
(KRISHNA S DIXIT)
JUDGE
Snb/cbc/bsv
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1
[ad_1]
Source link