Respondent No. 1 gave a false statement at Para. 11
of the Form-26 Affidavit that she studied up to Class-X. There
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
3) The Respondent No. 1 falsely declared her highest
lands in respect of Respondent No. 1 and her spouse, at
Para. 7 Part-B(ii) of the Form-26 Affidavit, the Respondent
No. 1 had stated N/A (not applicable), which is false because
the Respondent No. 1 herself disclosed at Para. 7 Part-B(iv)
owned by her spouse. The said three non-agricultural lands
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
(b) Under Patta No. 265(old)/ 598/1598(new), Dag No. 758/
1795, Village No. 46-Naoriya Pakhanglakpa, Imphal
West; and
(c) Under Patta No. 964/1601(new) Dag No. 1184/1799,
Village No. 46-Naoriya Pakhanglakpa, Imphal West.
According to the petitioner, such non-disclosure of the
three non-agricultural lands belonging to her spouse is a
defect of substantial nature.
5) At Para. 7 Part-B(iv) of the Form-26 Affidavit, the Respondent
No. 1 stated that the non-agricultural land under Patta No.
106(old)/214 (new), Dag No. 837, Village No. 46-Naoriya
Pakhanglakpa, Imphal West, measuring an area of 1797.7212
sq. ft. belonging to her spouse was not an inherited property
and that the same was purchased on 27-10-2017 at the cost
of ₹1,40,000/- (Rupees one lakh forty thousand). According
to the petitioner, this is a false statement and non-disclosure
of the real price of the land because as per the records,
the cost of the said property at the time of purchase is
₹ 5,40,000/- (Rupees five lakh forty thousand). Non-disclosure
of true facts or swearing of false affidavit is a defect of
substantial in nature.
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
6) At Para. 8(vi), for the disclosure of Municipal Property Tax
Duty, the respondent No. 1 have stated N.A. (not applicable)
against each of the relevant column in respect of herself and
her spouse. However, on perusal of the land records, it has
been found that:-
(a) For the non-agricultural land under Patta No. 106
(old)/ 214(new), Dag No. 837, Village No. 46-Naoriya
Pakhanglakpa, Imphal West, which is owned by the
spouse of the Respondent No. 1, there is a tax-payable
duty of ₹ 250/- for the period of years 2018 to 2022.
Accordingly, the Respondent No. 1 has given a false
statement at Para. 8(vi) about Municipal/ Property Tax
Duty payable by her spouse, which is nothing but
swearing of false affidavit.
(b) In the non-agricultural land under Patta No. 964/1601
(old)/ 964/1601(new), Dag No. 1184/1799, Village No.
46-Naoriya Pakhanglakpa, Imphal West, which is owned
by the spouse of the Respondent No. 1, there is a tax-
payable duty of ₹ 50/- for the year 2022. Accordingly, the
Respondent No. 1 has made a false statement at Para.
8(vi) about Municipal/ Property Tax due payable by her
spouse, which is nothing but swearing of false affidavit.
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
[5] According to the petitioner, in view of the above non-disclosure
or giving false statement in Form-26 Affidavit, the nomination papers of
the Respondent No. 1 is liable to be rejected as respondent No. 1 has
violated the provisions of the Representation of People Act, 1951
("RP Act", for short) and the Constitution of India, thereby keeping the
electorate in the dark and misleading the electorate from their free
exercise of electoral rights. Had the electorate been made known of
such material facts, they would not have voted for the Respondent
No. 1, hence, the votes secured by the Respondent No. 1 was by way
of fraud and concealing material information thereby betraying the
decisions of the voters to vote for her, which would amount to influence
by corrupt practice. The election of the Respondent No. 1 having been
materially affected by such corrupt practices, deserves to be declared
as void.
[6] The Respondent No. 1 filed her written statement dated
16-08-2022 denying the statements and allegations by stating that there
was no defect of substantial character in the nomination papers filed by
her and that the Respondent No. 1 have substantially complied with
the requirements of valid nomination under Section 33 of the RP Act and
as such, the Returning Officer duly accepted her nomination papers.
The respondent No. 1 stated that her original name is "Kebi" and that
at the time of her admission in school, her parents have adopted the
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
name "Sonalika" and recorded the same name in the school records. It
has also been stated by the Respondent No. 1 that she is known by her
original name "Kebi" in the school as well as in her locality rather than
by the name "Sonalika". It has also been stated that the Respondent
No. 1 could not complete Class-X and she has been only known by
her original name "Kebi" and as such, she has enrolled her name as
"Kebi" in her Aadhaar Card, Passport, PAN Card, Electoral Voter ID
and Electoral Role and having established her identity by the said
documents, she in bona fide swear the Form-26 Affidavit in the name of
"Kebi".
The Respondent No. 1 further stated that the petitioner has
admitted to the effect that "Sonalika" and "Kebi" is the one and same
person and she has studied up to Class-X in the year 2005 and as such,
her highest educational qualification is studied up to Class-X is true.
[7] It has also been stated that in the State of Manipur, there are
only 2 (two) types of land, i.e., agricultural land and homestead land and
there is no column to be fill up in the Form-26 Affidavit for the homestead
land for the purpose of residential and that every details and particulars
of the homestead land belonging to the spouse of the respondent No. 1
have been disclosed at Para. 7 Part-B(iv) (residential building).
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
It has also been averred in the written statement that the
entry of ₹1,40,000/- (Rupees one lakh forty thousand) instead of
₹ 5,40,000/- (Rupees five lakh forty thousand) for the purchase cost of
the property belonging to the spouse of the Respondent No. 1 is an
inadvertent error, which is not a defect of substantial character and that
the petitioner failed to show how such defect would materially affect
the election of the Respondent No. 1.
[8] With regard to the tax-payable due to the land belonging to the
spouse of the Respondent No. 1 as alleged by the petitioner, it has been
stated that the Respondent No. 1 had paid all the revenue till the year
2022 on 18-01-2022.
The Respondent No. 1 stated that the question as to
improperly accepting her nomination paper does not arise as her
nomination was duly accepted by the Returning Officer since it
substantially complied with the provisions of Section 33 and 34 of the
RP Act and that there was no defect, which is of substantial character.
[9] Even though the Respondents No. 2 and 3 filed their
respective written statement, they did not contest the election petition.
However, in the written statement filed by the Respondent No. 3, it has
been averred that the Respondent No. 1 filed an Original (Declaration)
Suit No. 27 of 2022 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Imphal
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
West-II, Manipur, claiming for a decree declaring that the name, i.e.,
Sagolshem Kebi Devi and Sagolshem Sonalika Devi are one and
the same person and that the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Imphal
West-II, Manipur, had already taken a judicial notice in the said original
suit and allowed the Respondent No. 1 to file the said original suit
under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for declaration of the
plaintiff's name, i.e., Sagolshem Sonalika Devi and Sagolshem Kebi
Devi are the one and the same person. In the said written statement, a
certified copy of the plaint of the said original suit along with the
proceedings of the said trial court have been enclosed.
[11] On the basis of the pleadings made by the parties in the
election petition and written statements and after hearing the submission
advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the following
issues were framed on 07-12-2022:-
1. Whether the respondent No. 1 did not disclose her real name
in the Form 26 affidavit filed along with her nomination paper
for the 12th Manipur Legislative Assembly Election, 2022 in
respect of 21-Naoriya Pakhanglakpa Assembly Constituency
and whether such non-disclosure would amount to swearing
of false affidavit/ declaration with regard to vital information of
the candidate and materially affect the election of the
respondent No. 1?
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
2. Whether the respondent No. 1 did not disclose the non-
agricultural lands owned by her spouse in Form 26 affidavit
filed by the respondent No. 1 along with her nomination paper
for the 12th Manipur Legislative Assembly Election, 2022 in
respect of 21-Naoriya Pakhanglakpa Assembly Constituency
and whether such non-disclosure would materially affect the
election of the respondent No. 1?
3. Whether the respondent No. 1 did not correctly disclose the
purchase cost of property belonging to her spouse in Form 26
affidavit filed by her along with her nomination paper for the
12th Manipur Legislative Assembly Election, 2022 in respect of
21-Naoriya Pakhanglakpa Assembly Constituency and
whether such non-disclosure would materially affect the
election of the respondent No. 1?
4. Whether the petitioner is entitled to be declared as duly elected
member in the 12th Manipur Legislative Assembly Election,
2022 in respect of 21-Naoriya Pakhanglakpa Assembly
Constituency?
5. Whether the information given by the respondent No. 1 in
Form 26 of the Representation of People Act, 1950 was
substantially complied or not?
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
6. Whether there is any cause of action in filing the election
petition?
7. Whether the election petition is maintainable or not?
Subsequently by an order dated 08-10-2024 passed in
MC(El. Petn.) No. 45 of 2024, the following additional issue was framed:-
"Whether the nomination papers of the Returned Candidate/
Respondent No. 1 was improperly accepted thereby
materially affecting the election of the Respondent No. 1."
[12] On behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner himself was
examined as PW1 and one electorate of the petitioner's Assembly
Constituency viz., Shri Elangbam Ashok Singh was examined as PW2.
The following six official witnesses were also examined as PWs No. 3
to 8:-
1) PW 3 - Shri Sapam Mangijao Singh, Secretary, Board of
Secondary Education, Manipur.
2) PW 4 - Shri Elangbam Dhiren Singh, Principal, Little Master
English Higher Secondary School.
3) PW 5 - Md. Zamilur Rahman, Sub-Deputy Collector, Imphal
West (Central).
4) PW 6 - Shri Sapam Rajen Singh, Office Assistant of Little
Master English Higher Secondary School.
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
5) PW 7 - Shri Namoijam Rajen Singh, Supervisor Kanango,
Imphal West (Central).
6) PW 8 - Ak. Dilima Devi, Sub-Registrar (HQ), Imphal.
The petitioner also exhibited 15 documents marked as Exhibit
P-1/31 to P-1/45.
[13] On behalf of the Respondent No. 1, the Respondent No. 1
herself was examined as DW No. 1 and 2 other voters from the
same Assembly Constituency viz., Shri Sapam Jotin Singh and Shri
Chongtham Ranjan Singh were examined as DW No. 2 and DW No. 3
respectively. The Respondent 1 exhibited 7 documents, which are
marked as Exhibit D/2 to D/8. The Respondent 3 viz., Shri Konthoujam
Manoranjan Singh was also examined as DW No. 4.
[14] The petitioner by the present election petition is claiming that
the Respondent No. 1 has filed defective Form-26 Affidavit before the
concerned Returning Officer thereby concealing vital and material
information amongst others with regard to her official/ original name, her
educational qualifications, immovable properties including cost of one
of the immovable property of her spouse, which are within the special
knowledge of the Respondent No. 1, thereby swearing a false Affidavit
and as such, the same shall amount to corrupt practice by way of undue
influence in terms of Section 123(2) of the RP Act, 1951, thereby
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
materially affecting the election of the Respondent No. 1. It has also
been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the nomination of the
Respondent No. 1 was improperly accepted and the votes were obtained
by Respondent No. 1 by means of corrupt practice and undue influence
by deliberately and wilfully hiding the officially recorded name of the
Respondent No. 1 and the value of assets running into lakhs and as
such, the petitioner deserve all the reliefs sought for in the petition
including declaring the petitioner as duly elected to the seat of 12th
Manipur Legislative Assembly Election from 21-Naoriya Pakhanglakpa
Assembly Constituency.
[15] The case of the Respondent No. 1 is that "Sagolshem Kebi
Devi" and "Sagolshem Sonalika Devi" are one and the same person
and both are her name. The Respondent No. 1 also claimed that the
name "Sagolshem Kebi Devi" was disclosed in her Form-26 Affidavit
as her name is recorded in the relevant Electoral Roll and that there is
no concealment or non-disclosure of her name. The Respondent No. 1
also raised a question as to whether her name as recorded in the
documents like Aadhaar Card, PAN Card, Passport, Electoral Voter ID,
Electoral Roll, etc. is not to be treated as her real/ official name only
because of the fact that in her school records, her name was recorded
as Sonalika. It has been submitted on behalf of the Respondent No. 1
that even though immovable assets belonging to her spouse was not
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
disclosed at Para. 7 (B)(ii) of her Form-26 Affidavit, she disclosed all
the immovable assets belonging to her spouse at Para. 7(B)(iv) of the
said affidavit and as such, there is no question of non-disclosure of the
said property. The Respondent No. 1 further claimed that in the State of
Manipur, there is no classification of land such as "non-agricultural land"
and as the immovable assets belonging to her spouse being classified
as "homestead land" in the relevant land records, she was not required
to disclose the same at Para. 7(B)(ii) of the Form-26 Affidavit. The
Respondent No. 1 also claimed that the price of the immovable property
belonging to her spouse was wrongly entered in the Form-26 Affidavit
inadvertently through bona fide typographical mistake and that there is
no defect which is of a substantial character in her Form-26 Affidavit.
[16] Keeping in view the rival submissions advanced on behalf of
the parties and all the materials available on record, this Court proceeds
to examine the issues framed earlier by this Court.
[16:1] Issue No. 1:-
Whether the respondent No. 1 did not disclose her real name
in the Form 26 affidavit filed along with her nomination paper
for the 12th Manipur Legislative Assembly Election, 2022 in
respect of 21-Naoriya Pakhanglakpa Assembly Constituency
and whether such non-disclosure would amount to swearing
of false affidavit/ declaration with regard to vital information of
the candidate and materially affect the election of the
respondent No. 1?
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
[16:2] In the Form-26 Affidavit submitted by the Respondent No. 1
along with her nomination papers (Exhibit P-1/32 (Colly.)),
the Respondent No. 1 under oath declared her name as
Sagolshem Kebi Devi. However, the case of the petitioner is
that the Respondent No. 1 did not disclosed her original name
as recorded in the school records as well as in the records
of the Board of Secondary Education, Manipur. Her original
name as recorded in her school (Little Master English Higher
Secondary School, Samurou having studied Class-X in 2005)
is Sagolshem Sonalika Devi. Her original name registered
with the Board of Secondary Education Manipur, 2004 while
studying Class-IX for the purpose of appearing in the High
School Leaving Certificate Examination is also Sagolshem
Sonalika Devi. In the list of Class-X students of Little Master
English Higher Secondary School, Samurou, enrolled for
appearing in the HSLC Examination, 2006, the name of
Sagolshem Sonalika Devi is found to be recorded.
[16:3] It is also the case of the petitioner that if the name of the
Respondent No. 1 is Sagolshem Kebi Devi, the statement
given by the Respondent No. 1 at Para. No. 11 of the Form-26
Affidavit that she studied up to 10th Standard in the year 2005
at Little Master English Higher Secondary School, Samurou, is
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
a false statement as no person under the name of Sagolshem
Kebi Devi have ever studied Class-X in the year 2005 in the
said Little Master Higher Secondary School. According to the
petitioner, non-disclosure of her real/ official name by the
Respondent No. 1 in her Form-26 Affidavit will amount to
defect, which is substantial in nature and swearing of false
affidavit and as such, the same shall amount to corrupt
practice by way of undue influence in terms of Section 123(2)
of the RP Act, 1951.
[16:4] It has also been strenuously argued on behalf of the petitioner
that it has been proved during the trial of the present election
petition that the Respondent No. 1's official/ original name is
Sagolshem Sonalika Devi, being evident from her voluntary
admission, academic records and other official documents,
however, the Respondent No. 1 did not disclosed her original/
official name in her Form-26 Affidavit and that her failure to do
so, while continuing to use a different name in her election
affidavit, breaks the necessary consistency in the official
identity documents. It has also been stated that by hiding her
true name, the Respondent No. 1 withhold information she
only knew and deprive the voters of the information that they
need to choose their representative wisely, which amounts to
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
misleading and influencing the voters while exercising their
franchise rights thereby making the Respondent No. 1's
election liable to be set aside under Section 100(1)(d)(i) of the
RP Act, 1951.
Relying on a number of judgments rendered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, it has been submitted on
behalf of the petitioner that it is a well settled position of law
that disclosing one's true identity is not just a formality but a
crucial part of fair and transparent election and that a person's
name is a key part of their identity and any change to it must
follow a clear and verifiable legal process and the same is
essential for public interest and national security. It has also
been submitted that voters have a fundamental right under
Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India to know the full
background of candidates including their real names and that
the withholding of such information or hiding facts about one's
identity or assets are found to directly harm the integrity of
elections and that such non-disclosure not only breach legal
duties but also deprive voters of the information they need to
choose their representative wisely.
[16:5] In support of the contentions, the following case laws have
been cited on behalf of the petitioner:-
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
1) (2021) 7 SCC 535 "Jigya Yadav v. Central Board of
Secondary Education & ors." wherein it has been held as
under:- -
"125. Identity, therefore, is an amalgam of various internal and
external including acquired characteristics of an individual
and name can be regarded as one of the foremost indicators
of identity. And therefore, an individual must be in complete
control of her name and law must enable her to retain as well
as to exercise such control freely "for all times". Such control
would inevitably include the aspiration of an individual to be
recognised by a different name for a just cause. Article 19(1)(a)
of the Constitution provides for a guaranteed right to freedom
of speech and expression. In light of Navtej Singh Johar, this
freedom would include the freedom to lawfully express one's
identity in the manner of their liking. In other words,
expression of identity is a protected element of freedom of
expression under the Constitution."
"127. To begin with, it is important to explain what we understand by
this right to change of name as a constituent element of
freedom of expression of identity. Any change in identity of an
individual has to go through multiple steps and it cannot be
regarded as complete without proper fulfilment of those steps.
An individual may self-identify oneself with any title or epithet
at any point of time. But the change of identity would not be
regarded as formally or legally complete until and unless the
State and its agencies take note thereof in their records.
Afterall, in social sphere, an individual is not only recognised
by how an individual identifies oneself but also by how his/
her official records identify him/her. For, in every public
transaction of an individual, official records introduce the
person by his/her name and other relevant particulars."
2) 2023 SCC OnLine All 4207 "Mohd. Same Rao Vs. State of U.P.
& ors." wherein it has been held as under:
"62. Congruency in all identity related documents is an essential
requirement of public interest and national security. In case a
person is allowed to carry identification documents with
separate names it would lead to confusion in identity and
possibility of mischief. The State has to proactively prevent any
such possibility of mischief or misuse."
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
"64. Secretary, Ministry of Home, Government of India and the Chief
Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, shall create
appropriate legal and administrative frameworks to ensure that
both Governments work in concert to achieve the end of making
identity related identity documents consistent and removing
anomalies therein."
3) (2002) 5 SCC 294 "Union of India Vs. Association for
Democratic Reforms & anr." wherein it has been held as
under:-
"22. For health of democracy and fair election, whether the
disclosure of assets by a candidate, his/her qualification and
particulars regarding involvement in criminal cases are
necessary for informing voters, maybe illiterate, so that they
can decide intelligently, whom to vote for. In our opinion, the
decision of even an illiterate voter, if properly educated and
informed about the contesting candidate, would be based on
his own relevant criteria of selecting a candidate. In
democracy, periodical elections are conducted for having
efficient governance for the country and for the benefit of
citizens -- voters. In a democratic form of government, voters
are of utmost importance. They have right to elect or re-elect
on the basis of the antecedents and past performance of the
candidate. The voter has the choice of deciding whether
holding of educational qualification or holding of property is
relevant for electing or re-electing a person to be his
representative. Voter has to decide whether he should cast
vote in favour of a candidate who is involved in a criminal case.
For maintaining purity of elections and a healthy democracy,
voters are required to be educated and well informed about the
contesting candidates. Such information would include assets
held by the candidate, his qualification including educational
qualification and antecedents of his life including whether he
was involved in a criminal case and if the case is decided --
its result, if pending -- whether charge is framed or
cognizance is taken by the court. There is no necessity of
suppressing the relevant facts from the voters."
"34. From the aforequoted paragraph, it can be deduced that the
members of a democratic society should be sufficiently
informed so that they may influence intelligently the decisions
which may affect themselves and this would include their
decision of casting votes in favour of a particular candidate. If
there is a disclosure by a candidate as sought for then it would
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
strengthen the voters in taking appropriate decision of casting
their votes."
"38. If right to telecast and right to view sport games and the right
to impart such information is considered to be part and parcel
of Article 19(1)(a), we fail to understand why the right of a
citizen/voter -- a little man -- to know about the antecedents
of his candidate cannot be held to be a fundamental right
under Article 19(1)(a). In our view, democracy cannot survive
without free and fair election, without free and fairly informed
voters. Votes cast by uninformed voters in favour
of X or Y candidate would be meaningless. As stated in the
aforesaid passage, one-sided information, disinformation,
misinformation and non-information, all equally create an
uninformed citizenry which makes democracy a farce.
Therefore, casting of a vote by a misinformed and non-
informed voter or a voter having one-sided information only is
bound to affect the democracy seriously. Freedom of speech
and expression includes right to impart and receive
information which includes freedom to hold opinions.
Entertainment is implied in freedom of "speech and
expression" and there is no reason to hold that freedom of
speech and expression would not cover right to get material
information with regard to a candidate who is contesting
election for a post which is of utmost importance in the
democracy."
"46. To sum up the legal and constitutional position which emerges
from the aforesaid discussion, it can be stated that:
1. The jurisdiction of the Election Commission is wide enough
to include all powers necessary for smooth conduct of
elections and the word "elections" is used in a wide sense
to include the entire process of election which consists of
several stages and embraces many steps.
2. The limitation on plenary character of power is when
Parliament or State Legislature has made a valid law
relating to or in connection with elections, the Commission
is required to act in conformity with the said provisions. In
case where law is silent, Article 324 is a reservoir of power
to act for the avowed purpose of having free and fair
election. The Constitution has taken care of leaving scope
for exercise of residuary power by the Commission in its
own right as a creature of the Constitution in the infinite
variety of situations that may emerge from time to time in a
large democracy, as every contingency could not be
foreseen or anticipated by the enacted laws or the rules. By
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
issuing necessary directions, the Commission can fill the
vacuum till there is legislation on the subject. In Kanhiya Lal
Omar case the Court construed the expression
"superintendence, direction and control" in Article 324(1)
and held that a direction may mean an order issued to a
particular individual or a precept which many may have to
follow and it may be a specific or a general order and such
phrase should be construed liberally empowering the
Election Commission to issue such orders.
3. The word "elections" includes the entire process of election
which consists of several stages and it embraces many
steps, some of which may have an important bearing on the
process of choosing a candidate. Fair election
contemplates disclosure by the candidate of his past
including the assets held by him so as to give a proper
choice to the candidate according to his thinking and
opinion. As stated earlier, in Common Cause case the Court
dealt with a contention that elections in the country are
fought with the help of money power which is gathered from
black sources and once elected to power, it becomes easy
to collect tons of black money, which is used for retaining
power and for re-election. If on an affidavit a candidate is
required to disclose the assets held by him at the time of
election, the voter can decide whether he could be re-
elected even in case where he has collected tons of money.
Presuming, as contended by the learned Senior
Counsel Mr Ashwani Kumar, that this condition may not be
much effective for breaking a vicious circle which has
polluted the basic democracy in the country as the amount
would be unaccounted. Maybe true, still this would have its
own effect as a step-in-aid and voters may not elect law-
breakers as law-makers and some flowers of democracy
may blossom.
4. To maintain the purity of elections and in particular to bring
transparency in the process of election, the Commission
can ask the candidates about the expenditure incurred by
the political parties and this transparency in the process of
election would include transparency of a candidate who
seeks election or re-election. In a democracy, the electoral
process has a strategic role. The little man of this country
would have basic elementary right to know full particulars
of a candidate who is to represent him in Parliament where
laws to bind his liberty and property may be enacted.
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
5. The right to get information in democracy is recognised all
throughout and it is a natural right flowing from the concept
of democracy. At this stage, we would refer to Article 19(1)
and (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, which is as under:
"(1) Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without
interference.
(2) Everyone shall have the right to freedom of
expression; this right shall include freedom to seek,
receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds,
regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print,
in the form of art, or through any other media of his
choice."
6. On cumulative reading of a plethora of decisions of this
Court as referred to, it is clear that if the field meant for
legislature and executive is left unoccupied detrimental to
the public interest, this Court would have ample jurisdiction
under Article 32 read with Articles 141 and 142of the
Constitution to issue necessary directions to the executive
to subserve public interest.
7. Under our Constitution, Article 19(1)(a) provides for freedom
of speech and expression. Voter's speech or expression in
case of election would include casting of votes, that is to
say, voter speaks out or expresses by casting vote. For this
purpose, information about the candidate to be selected is
a must. Voter's (little man -- citizen's) right to know
antecedents including criminal past of his candidate
contesting election for MP or MLA is much more
fundamental and basic for survival of democracy. The little
man may think over before making his choice of electing
law-breakers as law-makers."
4) (2003) 4 SCC 399 "People's Union for Civil Liberties
(PUCL) & anr. v. Union of India" wherein it has been held
as under-
"16. Firstly, it is to be made clear that the judgment rendered by this
Court in Assn. for Democratic Reforms has attained finality. The
voters' right to know the antecedents of the candidates is based
on interpretation of Article 19(1)(a) which provides that all
citizens of this country would have fundamental right to
"freedom of speech and expression" and this phrase is
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
construed to include fundamental right to know relevant
antecedents of the candidate contesting the elections."
"17. Further, even though we are not required to justify the directions
issued in the aforesaid judgment, to make it abundantly clear that
it is not ipse dixit and is based on sound foundation, it can be
stated thus:
-- Democratic republic is part of the basic structure of the
Constitution.
-- For this, free and fair periodical elections based on adult
franchise are a must.
-- For having unpolluted healthy democracy, citizens-voters
should be well informed."
"18. So, the foundation of a healthy democracy is to have well-
informed citizens-voters. The reason to have right of information
with regard to the antecedents of the candidate is that voter can
judge and decide in whose favour he should cast his vote. It is
the voter's discretion whether to vote in favour of an illiterate or
literate candidate. It is his choice whether to elect a candidate
against whom criminal cases for serious or non-serious charges
were filed but is acquitted or discharged. He is to consider
whether his candidate may or may not have sufficient assets so
that he may not be tempted to indulge in unjustified means for
accumulating wealth. For assets or liability, the voter may
exercise his discretion in favour of a candidate whose liability is
minimum and/or there are no overdues of public financial
institution or government dues. From this information, it would
be, to some extent, easy to verify whether unaccounted money
is utilized for contesting election and whether a candidate is
contesting election for getting rich or after being elected to what
extent he became richer. Exposure to public scrutiny is one of
the known means for getting clean and less polluted persons to
govern the country. A little man -- a citizen -- a voter is the
master of his vote. He must have necessary information so that
he can intelligently decide in favour of a candidate who satisfies
his criterion of being elected as an MP or MLA. On occasions, it
is stated that we are not having such intelligent voters. This is no
excuse. This would be belittling a little citizen/voter. He himself
may be illiterate but still he would have the guts to decide in
whose favour he should cast his vote. In any case, for having free
and fair election and not to convert democracy into a mobocracy
and mockery or a farce, information to voters is a necessity."
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
5) (2015) 3 SCC 467 "Krishnamoorthy v. Sivakumar & ors."
wherein it has been held as under -
"91. The purpose of referring to the instructions of the Election
Commission is that the affidavit sworn by the candidate has to
be put in public domain so that the electorate can know. If they
know the half truth, as submits Mr Salve, it is more dangerous,
for the electorate is denied of the information which is within the
special knowledge of the candidate. When something within
special knowledge is not disclosed, it tantamounts to fraud, as
has been held in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath. While
filing the nomination form, if the requisite information, as has
been highlighted by us, relating to criminal antecedents, is not
given, indubitably, there is an attempt to suppress, effort to
misguide and keep the people in dark. This attempt undeniably
and undisputedly is undue influence and, therefore, amounts to
corrupt practice. It is necessary to clarify here that if a candidate
gives all the particulars and despite that he secures the votes
that will be an informed, advised and free exercise of right by the
electorate. That is why there is a distinction between a
disqualification and the corrupt practice. In an election petition,
the election petitioner is required to assert about the cases in
which the successful candidate is involved as per the rules and
how there has been non-disclosure in the affidavit. Once that is
established, it would amount to corrupt practice. We repeat at
the cost of repetition, it has to be determined in an election
petition by the Election Tribunal."
6) (2018) 4 SCC 699 "Lok Prahari through its General Secretary
S.N. Shukla Vs. Union of India, wherein it has been held as
under -
"57. Collection of such data can be undertaken by any governmental
agency or even the Election Commission. The present writ
petition seeks that the State be compelled to make a law
authorising the collection of data pertaining to the financial
affairs of the legislators. The petitioner submits that the first step
in the collection of data should be to call upon those who seek
to get elected to a legislative body to make a declaration of (i)
their assets and those of their associates (which is already a
requirement under Section 33 of the 1951 RP Act, etc.); and (ii)
the sources of their income."
"58. The obligation to make the second of the abovementioned two
declarations arises as a corollary to the fundamental right of the
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
voter under Article 19(1)(a) to know the relevant information
with respect to the candidate, to enable the voter to make an
assessment and make an appropriate choice of his
representative in the legislature. The enforcement of such a
fundamental right needs no statutory sanction. This Court and
the High Courts are expressly authorised by the Constitution to
give appropriate directions to the State and its instrumentalities
and other bodies for enforcement of fundamental rights. On the
other hand, nobody has the fundamental right to be a legislator
or to contest an election to become a legislator. They are only
constitutional rights structured by various limitations prescribed
by the Constitution and statutes like the 1951 RP Act. The
Constitution expressly permits the structuring of those rights by
Parliament by or under the authority of law by prescribing further
qualifications or disqualifications. To contest an election for
becoming a legislator, a candidate does not require the consent
of all the voters except the appropriate number of proposers
being electors of the Constituency, and compliance with other
procedural requirements stipulated under the 1951 RP Act and
the Rules made thereunder. But to get elected, every candidate
requires the approval of the "majority" of the number of voters
of the Constituency choosing to exercise their right to vote.
Voters have a fundamental right to know the relevant information
about the candidates. For reasons discussed earlier, the
financial background in all its aspects, of the candidate and
his/her associates is relevant and critical information. Therefore,
a candidate's constitutional right to contest an election to the
legislature should be subservient to the voter's fundamental
right to know the relevant information regarding the candidate;
information which is critical to the making of an informed and
rational choice in this area."
7) 2020 SCC OnLine Mani 312 "Mayanglambam Rameshwar
Singh Vs. Yengkhom Surchandra Singh & anr." wherein it
has been held as under -
"114. One may look this aspect from another perspective. If the very
basis of the election of the returned candidate, i.e., the
nomination of the candidate which is stated to be valid, is later
on found to be not valid, as in the present case, the very basis
and foundation for sustaining the election of the returned
candidate goes. In other words, once the foundation is taken
away, the election will have no basis to stand and thus will be
rendered otiose. He cannot be treated to have been elected at
all. Hence, the moment there is a finding that the nomination of
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
the returned candidate has been improperly accepted, it
immediately materially affects the result of the returned
candidate. Accordingly, if there be any burden on the petitioner
to prove that the result of the election of the returned candidate
has been materially affected by improper acceptance of the
nomination of the returned candidate, such a burden also gets
discharged immediately. Thus, there will not be any need to
prove further on the part of the petitioner that the improper
acceptance of the nomination of the returned candidate has
materially affected the result of the election of the returned
candidate. For the reasons discussed above, the election of the
first respondent is declared void under Section 100(1)(d)(i) of the
RP Act. Issue Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 are answered in favour of the
petitioner and against the first respondent."
[16:6] The case of the Respondent No. 1 is that she had clearly and
correctly mentioned her name as Sagolshem Kebi Devi in
the Form-26 Affidavit submitted along with her nomination
papers, which is consistent with the Electoral Roll entry of
her name at Sl. No. 426 in Part No. 14 of the 21-Naoriya
Pakhanglakpa Assembly Constituency, 2022. In her written
statement at Para. No. 5, it is stated that her original name is
"Kebi" and that at the time of her admission in school, her
parents have adopted the name "Sonalika" and recorded the
same name in the school records, however, the Respondent
No. 1 is known by her original name "Kebi" in the school as
well as in her locality rather than by the name "Sonalika". In
the deposition of Respondent No.1, it has also been stated that
she could not complete Class-X course and she has been
commonly known by her original name Kebi and that she
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
never used her name Sonalika after she left her school and
adopted her original name Kebi and as such, she has enrolled
her name as Kebi in the Aadhaar Card, Passport, PAN
Card, Electoral Voter ID Card and Electoral Roll. Having thus
established her identity by the said documents, the
Respondent No. 1 in bona fide swear the Affidavit in the
name of Kebi.
[16:7] It has been argued on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 that
her name Kebi as recorded in the Aadhaar Car (Exhibit D/2)
Passport (Exhibit D/3), PAN Card (Exhibit D/4) and Voter
ID Card (Exhibit D/5) and Electoral Roll (Exhibit D/6)
unequivocally establish the identity of the Respondent No. 1
as Kebi and her use of this name in the nomination papers
as well as in the Form-26 Affidavit are valid and non-disclosure
of the name "Sonalika", which is an alternative name, does
not amount to swearing of false Affidavit or non-disclosure of
any vital information which will amount to defect of substantial
nature.
[16:8] It has been argued on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 that
under Section 33(4) of the Representation of the People Act,
1951, it is provided that for a valid nomination, the Returning
Officer is under obligation to ensure that the names and the
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
electoral roll numbers of the candidate and his proposer as
entered in the nomination papers are the same as those in
the Electoral Roll. It has also been argued that under Section
36(7) of the RP Act, 1951, it is provided that a certified copy of
an entry in the Electoral Roll for the time being in force of a
constituency shall be conclusive evidence to the fact that
the person referred to in that entry is an elector for that
constituency, unless it is proved that he is subject to a
disqualification mentioned in Section 16 of the RP Act, 1950.
The sum and substance of the argument advanced on behalf
of Respondent No. 1 is that the use of her name Kebi in
her nomination papers in the Form-26 Affidavit was bona fide,
which is supported by official documents such as Aadhaar
Card, Passport, PAN Card, Electoral Voter ID Card, Electoral
Roll, etc. and not using her name Sonalika does not amount
to non-disclosure or defect, which is substantial in nature or
will not amount to filing of a false affidavit.
[16:9] In the present case, the admitted position of the facts available
on record are:
(a) The Respondent No. 1 agreed and admitted that her name
"Sonalika" was recorded in the official records of the
school viz. Little Master English Higher Secondary School,
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
Samurou, where she studied up to Class-X as well as in
the records of the Board of Secondary Education, Manipur;
(b) The Respondent No. 1 later recorded her name "Kebi" in
her Aadhaar Card, Passport, PAN Card, Electoral Voter
ID Card and in the Electoral Roll of the 21-Naoriya
Pakhanglakpa Assembly Constituency, 2022 and such
entry of her name has not been challenged by anyone;
(c) In his cross-examination (at Question No. 19), the
petitioner has agreed that the information given by the
Respondent No. 1 in her Form-26 Affidavit (at Para. No. 2
of Part-A) that her name, i.e., Sagolshem Kebi Devi
as enrolled in 21-Naoriya Pakhanglakpa Assembly
Constituency, Manipur at Sl. No. 426 in Part No. 14 is
true; and
(d) The Respondent No. 1 has not disclosed her name
Sonalika in the Form-26 Affidavit.
[16:10] The questions which rose for consideration in connection with
the Issue No. 1 are:-
(i) Whether non-disclosure of the Respondent No. 1's name
"Sonalika" in her Form-26 Affidavit would amount to
defect, which is substantial in nature?
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
(ii) Whether such non-disclosure will amount to swearing of
false Affidavit with regard to disclosure of vital information
of the candidate?
(iii) Whether such non-disclosure would materially affect the
election of the Respondent No. 1.
[16:11] In my considered view, all the above three questions are
interlinked and as such, the same are considered jointly. On
examination of the original documents exhibited by the
Respondent Nol. 1, it is found that the Aadhaar Card of the
petitioner (Exhibit D/2) was issued on 17-01-2014 wherein
her name is recorded as Sagolshem Kebi Devi, Passport of
the petitioner (Exhibit D/3) was issued on 13-05-2019 wherein
her name is recorded as Sagolshem Kebi Devi, her Electoral
ID Card (Exhibit D/5) was issued on 11-09-2020 wherein her
name is recorded as Sagolshem Kebi Devi and the Electoral
Roll for the 21-Naoriya Pakhanglakpa Assembly Constituency
2022 was notified on 05-01-2022 wherein her name was
entered at Sl. No. 426 in Part No. 14 as Sagolshem Kebi
Devi. All the aforesaid official documents came into existence
well before starting of the election process in the month of
February, 2022 and no one, including the present petitioner,
challenged the correctness or the validity of any of the said
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
documents till today. In absence of any such challenge being
made, this Court cannot examine the correctness or validity of
any of the aforesaid documents at this point of time and this
Court can come to a logical conclusion that the said official
documents or entries made therein are correct and valid.
Accordingly, this court can come to the conclusion that the
Respondent No. 1 has correctly given her name in the
Form-26 Affidavit and the Respondent No. 1 has changed and
adopted her name as "Kebi" and stopped using her name
"Sonalika" as recorded in her school records.
[16:12] There is another aspect of the matter to be considered by this
court. Under Section 36(2)(b) of the RP Act, 1951, it is clearly
provided that the Returning Officer can reject any nomination
on the ground that there has been a failure to comply with
any of the provisions of Section 33 or Section 34 of the Act.
Under Section 33(4) of the RP Act 1951, it is provided that on
presentation of a nomination paper, the Returning Officer shall
satisfy himself that the names and Electoral Roll numbers of
the candidate and his proposer as entered in the nomination
paper are the same as those entered in the Electoral Roll.
Under Section 36(7), it is provided that a certified copy of an
entry in the Electoral Roll for the time being in force of a
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
constituency shall be conclusive evidence of the fact that the
person referred to in that entry is an elector for that
constituency, unless it is proved that he is subject to a
disqualification mentioned in Section 16 of the RP Act, 1950.
[16:13] In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the Respondent
No. 1 disclosed her name as Sagolshem Kebi Devi in her
Form-26 Affidavit submitted along with her nomination papers.
In the cross-examination (at Question No. 19), the petitioner
himself has agreed that the information given by the
Respondent No. 1 in her Form-26 Affidavit that her name,
i.e., Sagolshem Kebi Devi as enrolled in 21-Naoriya
Pakhanglakpa Assembly Constituency, Manipur at Serial
No. 426 in Part No. 14 is true. The said Electoral Roll is
exhibited as D/6 (Colly.) by the Respondent No. 1 and her
name is found to be recorded at Sl. No. 426 of the said
Electoral Roll. Taking into consideration such admitted
position of facts and the provisions of Section 36(2)(b) read
with Section 33(4) and 36(7) , this court is of the considered
view that the Respondent No. 1 had correctly given or
disclosed her name in her Form-26 Affidavit and that she has
not committed any act contrary to law in disclosing her name
as Sagolshem Kebi Devi.
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
[16:14] Moreover, in the present election petition, the petitioner has
not pleaded anything nor any argument has been advanced
on his behalf as to how non-disclosure of the Respondent
No. 1's name Sonalika in her Form-26 affidavit would
materially affect the result of her election in any way. The
petitioner has also not cited any particular statutory provision
under which the respondent No. 1 is obligated to disclose her
alternate name "Sonalika" while filing her nomination papers.
In the absence of any pleadings or materials to support such
contention, this court cannot subscribe to the bald statement
made by the petitioner that non-disclosure of her name
"Sonalika" by the respondent No. 1 in her Form-26 Affidavit is
a defect which is substantial in nature and would materially
affect the result of her election.
This court respectfully agreed with the principles
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of "Jigya
Yadav" (supra) "Md. Same Rao" (supra), "Association of
Democratic Reforms" (supra), People's Union for Civil
Liberties" (supra), "Krishnamoorthy" (supra), "Lok
Prahari" (supra) and "Mayanglambam Rameshwar" (supra)
cited on behalf of the petitioner. However, in the facts and
circumstances of the present case, this court is of the
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
considered view that the case laws cited by the petitioner is of
no help to his case.
Taking into consideration the findings and the reasons
given herein above, this court cannot also agree with the
submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the
Respondent No. 1 did not disclosed vital information in her
Form-26 Affidavit and swear a false affidavit with regard to her
name. Accordingly, Issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the
Respondent No 1 and against the petitioner.
[17] Issues No. 2 and 3 are taken up jointly for consideration.
Issue No. 2:
Whether the respondent No. 1 did not disclose the non-
agricultural lands owned by her spouse in Form 26 affidavit
filed by the respondent No. 1 along with her nomination
paper for the 12th Manipur Legislative Assembly Election,
2022 in respect of 21-Naoriya Pakhanglakpa Assembly
Constituency and whether such non-disclosure would
materially affect the election of the respondent No. 1?
Issue No. 3:
Whether the respondent No. 1 did not correctly disclose
the purchase cost of property belonging to her spouse in
Form 26 affidavit filed by her along with her nomination
paper for the 12th Manipur Legislative Assembly Election,
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
2022 in respect of 21-Naoriya Pakhanglakpa Assembly
Constituency and whether such non-disclosure would
materially affect the election of the respondent No. 1?
[17:1] With regard to the Issue No. 2, the case of the petitioner is that
the spouse of the Respondent No. 1 is the owner and pattadar
of the following three homestead lands:-
(i) Patta No. 106(old), 214(new) covered by C.S. Dag No. 837
measuring an area of 0.01670 hectare/ 0.04127 acre situated
at 46-Naoriya Pakhanglakpa recorded in the name of
Soraisam Gobin Singh, S/o of Brajamani Singh;
(ii) Patta No. 265(old), 598/1598(new) covered by C.S. Dag
No. Sheet-1 758/1796 measuring an area of 0.01970 hectare/
0.04868 acre situated at 46-Naoriya Pakhanglakpa recorded
in the name of Soraisam Gobin Singh, S/o Brajamani Singh of
Heirangoithong Ningthemcha Karong;
(iii) Patta No. 964/ 1601 covered by C.S. Dag No. Sheet-1 1184/
1799 measuring an area of 0.02124 hectare/ 0.05248
acre situated at 46-Naoriya Pakhanglakpa recorded in the
name of Soraisam Gobin Singh, S/o Brajamani Singh of
Heirangoithong Ningthemcha Karong. The petitioner produced
and exhibited certified copies of the Jamabandi (land records)
of the said three homestead lands and exhibited them as
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
Exhibit P-1/41, Exhibit P-1/42 and Exhibit P-1/43 respectively.
Two official witness, viz., PW No. 5, Md. Zamilur Rahman,
Sub-Deputy Collector, Imphal West (Central) and PW No. 7,
Shri Namoijam Ranjan Singh, Supervisor Kanango, Imphal
West (Central), who are the officials who prepared and issued
certified copies of the said Jamabandi, were examined
and they confirmed and established the authenticity of the
certified copies of the said three Jamabandi (land records).
[17:2] It is the case of the petitioner that the Respondent No. 1 did
not deny that the aforesaid three homestead lands belong to
and are owned by her spouse. However, at Para. 7 Part B(ii)
of the Form-26 Affidavit for disclosure of non-agricultural
lands against the column of spouse, the Respondent No. 1
wrote "N/A" thereby concealing or not disclosing the vital
information that the Respondent No. 1's spouse have three
non-agricultural lands. According to the petitioner, such
non-disclosure are defects which is substantial in character.
The Returning Officer ought to have rejected her nomination
especially when the Returning Officer has knowledge derived
from the disclosure made by the Respondent No. 1 at Para. 7
Part-B(iv) of the Form-26 Affidavit that there are residential
buildings at the said three homestead lands belonging to
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
her spouse. According to the petitioner, the nomination papers
of the Respondent No. 1 was improperly accepted by the
Returning Officer thereby materially affecting the election of
the Respondent No. 1.
[17:3] With regard to Issue No. 3, it is the case of the petitioner
that at Para. 7 Part-B(iv) of the Form-26 Affidavit, the
Respondent No. 1 disclosed that homestead land under Patta
No. 106(old), 214(new) Dag No. 837 of Village No. 46-Naoriya
Pakhanglakpa, Imphal West, belonging to the spouse of the
Respondent No. 1 is not an inherited property and stated that
it is a self-acquired property by way of purchase at the cost of
₹ 1,40,000/- (Rupees one lakh forty thousand). According to
the petitioner, the said declaration made by the Respondent
No. 1 in the aforesaid column with regard to the cost of the
land is a false statement and amounts to swearing of a false
affidavit. According to the petitioner, the cost of the said
homestead land/ immovable property at the time of purchase
is ₹ 5,40,000/- (Rupees five lakh forty thousand). In support of
such statements, the petitioner produced a certified copy of the
registered Sale Deed executed on 10-11-2017 between one
Chongtham Basaraj Singh and Soraisham Gobin Singh
(spouse of the Respondent No. 1) in respect of the aforesaid
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
homestead land which is exhibited as Exhibit P-1/44. In
the said registered Sale Deed, the price/ cost for purchasing
the aforesaid homestead land is clearly recorded and declared
as ₹ 5,40,000/- (Rupees five lakh forty thousand). It is the case
of the petitioner that the correctness and authenticity
of the certified copy of the said registered Sale Deed dated
10-11-2017 was verified and confirmed by PW No. 8, who is
an official witness, Ms. Ak. Dilima Devi, Sub-Registrar (HQ)
Imphal, Manipur.
[17:4] It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in view
of the above false statements made by the Respondent No. 1
in her Form-26 Affidavit, the nomination papers of the
Respondent No. 1 is liable to be rejected by the Returning
Officer under Section 36(2) of the RP Act, 1951 and that the
Respondent No. 1 should not have been allowed to contest the
12th Manipur Legislative Assembly Election, 2022 from
21-Naoriya Pakhanglakpa Assembly Constituency.
[17:5] It has also been contended on behalf of the petitioner that by
disclosing false statements in her Form-26 Affidavit with
regard to the assets of her spouse, the Respondent No. 1 had
violated Article 19 of the Constitution of India thereby
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
misleading the electorate from their free exercise of electoral
rights and that had the electorate been made known of such
material facts, they would not have voted for the Respondent
No. 1. Hence, the votes secured by the Respondent No. 1 by
way of fraud and concealing of material information have
betrayed the decision of the voters to vote for her which would
amount to undue influence of corrupt practice, as defined
under Section 123(2) of the RP Act, 1951. Therefore, the
election of the Respondent No. 1 having been materially
affected by such corrupt practice is liable to be declared as
void.
[17:6] The following case laws have been cited in support of the case
of the petitioner:-
1) (2002) 5 SCC 294 "Union of India Vs. Association for
Democratic Reforms & anr." wherein it has been held as
under:-
"22. For health of democracy and fair election, whether the
disclosure of assets by a candidate, his/her qualification and
particulars regarding involvement in criminal cases are
necessary for informing voters, maybe illiterate, so that they can
decide intelligently, whom to vote for. In our opinion, the
decision of even an illiterate voter, if properly educated and
informed about the contesting candidate, would be based on his
own relevant criteria of selecting a candidate. In democracy,
periodical elections are conducted for having efficient
governance for the country and for the benefit of citizens --
voters. In a democratic form of government, voters are of utmost
importance. They have right to elect or re-elect on the basis of
the antecedents and past performance of the candidate. The
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
voter has the choice of deciding whether holding of educational
qualification or holding of property is relevant for electing or re-
electing a person to be his representative. Voter has to decide
whether he should cast vote in favour of a candidate who is
involved in a criminal case. For maintaining purity of elections
and a healthy democracy, voters are required to be educated
and well informed about the contesting candidates. Such
information would include assets held by the candidate, his
qualification including educational qualification and
antecedents of his life including whether he was involved in a
criminal case and if the case is decided -- its result, if pending
-- whether charge is framed or cognizance is taken by the court.
There is no necessity of suppressing the relevant facts from the
voters."
"34. From the aforequoted paragraph, it can be deduced that the
members of a democratic society should be sufficiently
informed so that they may influence intelligently the decisions
which may affect themselves and this would include their
decision of casting votes in favour of a particular candidate. If
there is a disclosure by a candidate as sought for then it would
strengthen the voters in taking appropriate decision of casting
their votes."
"38. If right to telecast and right to view sport games and the right to
impart such information is considered to be part and parcel of
Article 19(1)(a), we fail to understand why the right of a
citizen/voter -- a little man -- to know about the antecedents of
his candidate cannot be held to be a fundamental right under
Article 19(1)(a). In our view, democracy cannot survive without
free and fair election, without free and fairly informed voters.
Votes cast by uninformed voters in favour of X or Y candidate
would be meaningless. As stated in the aforesaid passage, one-
sided information, disinformation, misinformation and non-
information, all equally create an uninformed citizenry which
makes democracy a farce. Therefore, casting of a vote by a
misinformed and non-informed voter or a voter having one-
sided information only is bound to affect the democracy
seriously. Freedom of speech and expression includes right to
impart and receive information which includes freedom to hold
opinions. Entertainment is implied in freedom of "speech and
expression" and there is no reason to hold that freedom of
speech and expression would not cover right to get material
information with regard to a candidate who is contesting
election for a post which is of utmost importance in the
democracy."
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
"46. To sum up the legal and constitutional position which emerges
from the aforesaid discussion, it can be stated that:
1. The jurisdiction of the Election Commission is wide enough
to include all powers necessary for smooth conduct of
elections and the word "elections" is used in a wide sense to
include the entire process of election which consists of
several stages and embraces many steps.
2. The limitation on plenary character of power is when
Parliament or State Legislature has made a valid law relating
to or in connection with elections, the Commission is
required to act in conformity with the said provisions. In case
where law is silent, Article 324 is a reservoir of power to act
for the avowed purpose of having free and fair election. The
Constitution has taken care of leaving scope for exercise of
residuary power by the Commission in its own right as a
creature of the Constitution in the infinite variety of situations
that may emerge from time to time in a large democracy, as
every contingency could not be foreseen or anticipated by the
enacted laws or the rules. By issuing necessary directions,
the Commission can fill the vacuum till there is legislation on
the subject. In Kanhiya Lal Omar case the Court construed
the expression "superintendence, direction and control" in
Article 324(1) and held that a direction may mean an order
issued to a particular individual or a precept which many may
have to follow and it may be a specific or a general order and
such phrase should be construed liberally empowering the
Election Commission to issue such orders.
3. The word "elections" includes the entire process of election
which consists of several stages and it embraces many steps,
some of which may have an important bearing on the process
of choosing a candidate. Fair election contemplates
disclosure by the candidate of his past including the assets
held by him so as to give a proper choice to the candidate
according to his thinking and opinion. As stated earlier,
in Common Cause case the Court dealt with a contention that
elections in the country are fought with the help of money
power which is gathered from black sources and once elected
to power, it becomes easy to collect tons of black money,
which is used for retaining power and for re-election. If on an
affidavit a candidate is required to disclose the assets held
by him at the time of election, the voter can decide whether
he could be re-elected even in case where he has collected
tons of money.
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
Presuming, as contended by the learned Senior
Counsel Mr Ashwani Kumar, that this condition may not be
much effective for breaking a vicious circle which has
polluted the basic democracy in the country as the amount
would be unaccounted. Maybe true, still this would have its
own effect as a step-in-aid and voters may not elect law-
breakers as law-makers and some flowers of democracy may
blossom.
4. To maintain the purity of elections and in particular to bring
transparency in the process of election, the Commission can
ask the candidates about the expenditure incurred by the
political parties and this transparency in the process of
election would include transparency of a candidate who
seeks election or re-election. In a democracy, the electoral
process has a strategic role. The little man of this country
would have basic elementary right to know full particulars of
a candidate who is to represent him in Parliament where laws
to bind his liberty and property may be enacted.
5. The right to get information in democracy is recognised all
throughout and it is a natural right flowing from the concept
of democracy. At this stage, we would refer to Article 19(1)
and (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, which is as under:
"(1) Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without
interference.
(2) Everyone shall have the right to freedom of
expression; this right shall include freedom to seek,
receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds,
regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print,
in the form of art, or through any other media of his
choice."
6. On cumulative reading of a plethora of decisions of this
Court as referred to, it is clear that if the field meant for
legislature and executive is left unoccupied detrimental to
the public interest, this Court would have ample jurisdiction
under Article 32 read with Articles 141 and 142of the
Constitution to issue necessary directions to the executive
to subserve public interest.
7. Under our Constitution, Article 19(1)(a) provides for freedom
of speech and expression. Voter's speech or expression in
case of election would include casting of votes, that is to
say, voter speaks out or expresses by casting vote. For this
purpose, information about the candidate to be selected is
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
a must. Voter's (little man -- citizen's) right to know
antecedents including criminal past of his candidate
contesting election for MP or MLA is much more
fundamental and basic for survival of democracy. The little
man may think over before making his choice of electing
law-breakers as law-makers."
2) (2003) 4 SCC 399 "People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL)
& anr. Vs. Union of India & ors." wherein it has been held as
under:-
"16. Firstly, it is to be made clear that the judgment rendered by this
Court in Assn. for Democratic Reforms has attained finality. The
voters' right to know the antecedents of the candidates is based
on interpretation of Article 19(1)(a) which provides that all
citizens of this country would have fundamental right to
"freedom of speech and expression" and this phrase is
construed to include fundamental right to know relevant
antecedents of the candidate contesting the elections."
"17. Further, even though we are not required to justify the
directions issued in the aforesaid judgment, to make it
abundantly clear that it is not ipse dixit and is based on sound
foundation, it can be stated thus:
-- Democratic republic is part of the basic structure of the
Constitution.
-- For this, free and fair periodical elections based on adult
franchise are a must.
-- For having unpolluted healthy democracy, citizens-voters
should be well informed."
"18. So, the foundation of a healthy democracy is to have well-
informed citizens-voters. The reason to have right of
information with regard to the antecedents of the candidate is
that voter can judge and decide in whose favour he should cast
his vote. It is the voter's discretion whether to vote in favour of
an illiterate or literate candidate. It is his choice whether to elect
a candidate against whom criminal cases for serious or non-
serious charges were filed but is acquitted or discharged. He is
to consider whether his candidate may or may not have
sufficient assets so that he may not be tempted to indulge in
unjustified means for accumulating wealth. For assets or
liability, the voter may exercise his discretion in favour of a
candidate whose liability is minimum and/or there are no
overdues of public financial institution or government dues.
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
From this information, it would be, to some extent, easy to verify
whether unaccounted money is utilized for contesting election
and whether a candidate is contesting election for getting rich
or after being elected to what extent he became richer.
Exposure to public scrutiny is one of the known means for
getting clean and less polluted persons to govern the country.
A little man -- a citizen -- a voter is the master of his vote. He
must have necessary information so that he can intelligently
decide in favour of a candidate who satisfies his criterion of
being elected as an MP or MLA. On occasions, it is stated that
we are not having such intelligent voters. This is no excuse.
This would be belittling a little citizen/voter. He himself may be
illiterate but still he would have the guts to decide in whose
favour he should cast his vote. In any case, for having free and
fair election and not to convert democracy into a mobocracy
and mockery or a farce, information to voters is a necessity."
3) (2014) 14 SCC 189 "Resurgence India Vs. Election
Commission of India & anr." wherein it has been held as
under:-
"20. Thus, this Court held that a voter has the elementary right to
know full particulars of a candidate who is to represent him in
Parliament and such right to get information is universally
recognised natural right flowing from the concept of democracy
and is an integral part of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. It
was further held that the voter's speech or expression in case of
election would include casting of votes, that is to say, voter
speaks out or expresses by casting vote. For this purpose,
information about the candidate to be selected is a must. Thus,
in unequivocal terms, it is recognised that the citizen's right to
know of the candidate who represents him in Parliament will
constitute an integral part of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution
of India and any act, which is derogative of the fundamental
rights is at the very outset ultra vires."
"29. What emerges from the above discussion can be summarised in
the form of the following directions:
29.1. The voter has the elementary right to know full particulars
of a candidate who is to represent him in Parliament/
Assemblies and such right to get information is universally
recognised. Thus, it is held that right to know about the
candidate is a natural right flowing from the concept of
democracy and is an integral part of Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution.
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
29.2. The ultimate purpose of filing of affidavit along with the
nomination paper is to effectuate the fundamental right of
the citizens under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of
India. The citizens are supposed to have the necessary
information at the time of filing of nomination paper and for
that purpose, the Returning Officer can very well compel a
candidate to furnish the relevant information.
29.3. Filing of affidavit with blank particulars will render the
affidavit nugatory.
29.4. It is the duty of the Returning Officer to check whether the
information required is fully furnished at the time of filing
of affidavit with the nomination paper since such
information is very vital for giving effect to the "right to
know" of the citizens. If a candidate fails to fill the blanks
even after the reminder by the Returning Officer, the
nomination paper is fit to be rejected. We do comprehend
that the power of the Returning Officer to reject the
nomination paper must be exercised very sparingly but the
bar should not be laid so high that the justice itself is
prejudiced.
29.5. We clarify to the extent that para 73 of People's Union for
Civil Liberties case will not come in the way of the
Returning Officer to reject the nomination paper when the
affidavit is filed with blank particulars.
29.6. The candidate must take the minimum effort to explicitly
remark as "NIL" or "Not Applicable" or "Not known" in the
columns and not to leave the particulars blank.
29.7. Filing of affidavit with blanks will be directly hit by Section
125-A(i) of the RP Act. However, as the nomination paper
itself is rejected by the Returning Officer, we find no reason
why the candidate must be again penalised for the same
act by prosecuting him/her."
4) (2015) 3 SCC 467 "Krishnamoorthy Vs. Sivakumar & ors."
wherein it has been held as under:-
"91. The purpose of referring to the instructions of the Election
Commission is that the affidavit sworn by the candidate has to
be put in public domain so that the electorate can know. If they
know the half truth, as submits Mr Salve, it is more dangerous,
for the electorate is denied of the information which is within the
special knowledge of the candidate. When something within
special knowledge is not disclosed, it tantamounts to fraud, as
has been held in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath. While
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
filing the nomination form, if the requisite information, as has
been highlighted by us, relating to criminal antecedents, is not
given, indubitably, there is an attempt to suppress, effort to
misguide and keep the people in dark. This attempt undeniably
and undisputedly is undue influence and, therefore, amounts to
corrupt practice. It is necessary to clarify here that if a candidate
gives all the particulars and despite that he secures the votes
that will be an informed, advised and free exercise of right by the
electorate. That is why there is a distinction between a
disqualification and the corrupt practice. In an election petition,
the election petitioner is required to assert about the cases in
which the successful candidate is involved as per the rules and
how there has been non-disclosure in the affidavit. Once that is
established, it would amount to corrupt practice. We repeat at
the cost of repetition, it has to be determined in an election
petition by the Election Tribunal."
5) (2018) 4 SCC 699 "Lok Prahari through its General Secretary
S.N. Shukla Vs. Union of India & ors." wherein it has been
held as under:-
"57. Collection of such data can be undertaken by any governmental
agency or even the Election Commission. The present writ
petition seeks that the State be compelled to make a law
authorising the collection of data pertaining to the financial
affairs of the legislators. The petitioner submits that the first
step in the collection of data should be to call upon those who
seek to get elected to a legislative body to make a declaration of
(i) their assets and those of their associates (which is already a
requirement under Section 33 of the 1951 RP Act, etc.); and (ii)
the sources of their income."
"58. The obligation to make the second of the abovementioned two
declarations arises as a corollary to the fundamental right of the
voter under Article 19(1)(a) to know the relevant information
with respect to the candidate, to enable the voter to make an
assessment and make an appropriate choice of his
representative in the legislature. The enforcement of such a
fundamental right needs no statutory sanction. This Court and
the High Courts are expressly authorised by the Constitution to
give appropriate directions to the State and its instrumentalities
and other bodies for enforcement of fundamental rights. On the
other hand, nobody has the fundamental right to be a legislator
or to contest an election to become a legislator. They are only
constitutional rights structured by various limitations
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
prescribed by the Constitution and statutes like the 1951 RP
Act. The Constitution expressly permits the structuring of those
rights by Parliament by or under the authority of law by
prescribing further qualifications or disqualifications. To
contest an election for becoming a legislator, a candidate does
not require the consent of all the voters except the appropriate
number of proposers being electors of the Constituency, and
compliance with other procedural requirements stipulated
under the 1951 RP Act and the Rules made thereunder. But to
get elected, every candidate requires the approval of the
"majority" of the number of voters of the Constituency choosing
to exercise their right to vote. Voters have a fundamental right
to know the relevant information about the candidates. For
reasons discussed earlier, the financial background in all its
aspects, of the candidate and his/her associates is relevant and
critical information. Therefore, a candidate's constitutional right
to contest an election to the legislature should be subservient
to the voter's fundamental right to know the relevant information
regarding the candidate; information which is critical to the
making of an informed and rational choice in this area."
"79. We shall now deal with Prayer 2 which seeks a declaration
that non-disclosure of assets and sources of income would
amount to "undue influence" -- a corrupt practice under
Section 123(2) of the 1951 RP Act. In this behalf, heavy reliance
is placed by the petitioner on a judgment of this Court
in Krishnamoorthy v. Sivakumar. It was a case arising under the
Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994. A notification was issued by
the State Election Commission stipulating that every candidate
at an election to any panchayat is required to disclose
information, inter alia, whether the candidate was accused in
any pending criminal case of any offence punishable with
imprisonment for two years or more and in which charges have
been framed or cognizance has been taken by a court of law. In
an election petition, it was alleged that there were certain
criminal cases pending falling in the abovementioned
categories but the said information was not disclosed by the
returned candidate at the time of filing his nomination. One of
the questions before this Court was whether such non-
disclosure amounted to "undue influence" -- a corrupt practice
under the Panchayats Act. It may be mentioned that the
Panchayats Act simply adopted the definition of a corrupt
practice as contained in Section 123 of the 1951 RP Act."
"80. On an elaborate consideration of various aspects of the matter,
this Court in Krishnamoorthy case held as follows: (SCC p. 522,
para 91)
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
"91. ... While filing the nomination form, if the requisite
information, as has been highlighted by us, relating to
criminal antecedents, is not given, indubitably, there is an
attempt to suppress, effort to misguide and keep the
people in dark. This attempt undeniably and undisputedly
is undue influence and, therefore, amounts to corrupt
practice. ..."
"81. For the very same logic as adopted by this Court
in Krishnamoorthy, we are also of the opinion that the non-
disclosure of assets and sources of income of the candidates
and their associates would constitute a corrupt practice falling
under heading "undue influence" as defined under Section
123(2) of the 1951 RP Act. We, therefore, allow Prayer 2."
6) 2021 SCC OnLine Mani 153 "Yumkham Erabot Singh Vs.
Okram Henry Singh & anr." wherein it has been held as
under:-
"91. In the present Case, the Respondent No. 1 failed to disclose the
name of his spouse and his dependents, pending Criminal Cases
and educational qualification. As such, non-disclosure of such
information would constitute a corrupt practice falling under
heading 'undue influence' as defined under Section 123(2) of the
RP Act, 1951.
7) 2020 SCC OnLine Mani 312 "Mayanglambam Rameshwar
Singh Vs. Yengkhom Surchandra Singh & anr." wherein it
has been held as under -
"114. One may look this aspect from another perspective. If the very
basis of the election of the returned candidate, i.e., the
nomination of the candidate which is stated to be valid, is later
on found to be not valid, as in the present case, the very basis
and foundation for sustaining the election of the returned
candidate goes. In other words, once the foundation is taken
away, the election will have no basis to stand and thus will be
rendered otiose. He cannot be treated to have been elected at
all. Hence, the moment there is a finding that the nomination of
the returned candidate has been improperly accepted, it
immediately materially affects the result of the returned
candidate. Accordingly, if there be any burden on the petitioner
to prove that the result of the election of the returned candidate
has been materially affected by improper acceptance of the
nomination of the returned candidate, such a burden also gets
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
discharged immediately. Thus, there will not be any need to
prove further on the part of the petitioner that the improper
acceptance of the nomination of the returned candidate has
materially affected the result of the election of the returned
candidate. For the reasons discussed above, the election of the
first respondent is declared void under Section 100(1)(d)(i) of
the RP Act. Issue Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 are answered in favour of
the petitioner and against the first respondent."
[17.7] With regard to the issue No. 2, the case of the respondent
No. 1 is that there is only 2 (two) types of land in the State
of Manipur as per the land laws of the State of Manipur,
i.e., Agricultural Land & Homestead Land and there is no
column to fill up under the Form-26 Affidavit for Homestead
Land. The three homestead lands under the Jamabandis
(land records) exhibited as Exhibit P-1/41, Exhibit P-1/42
and Exhibit P-1/43 are the Homestead Lands of the spouse
of the respondent No. 1 and the detailed particulars of
the said three Homestead Lands are disclosed by the
Respondent No. 1 at Para. 7 Part-B(iv) (residential building)
and the Respondent No. 1 stated "N/A" in Para 7 Part B(ii)
(Non-Agricultural Land) of the Form-26 Affidavit submitted by
the Respondent No. 1.
It has been submitted on behalf of the Respondent
No. 1 that all the detailed information as required under Para.
7 Part-B(ii) in connection with the said 3 (three) homestead
land of the spouse of the Respondent No. 1 will be exactly the
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
same as disclosed by the Respondent No. 1 at Para. 7
Part-B(iv) of the said Form-26 Affidavit. It has also been
submitted on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 that the
Respondent No. 1 disclosed all the detailed particulars of the
said three homestead lands of her spouse at Para. 7 Part-B(iv)
in good faith and in a fair and transparent manner without
concealing anything and that there is no case of non-discloser
with regard to the said three homestead land.
It has further been submitted that the Respondent
No. 1 made no attempt to suppress information in connection
with the said three homestead lands of her spouse and that
she provided all the required details of the said three
homestead lands in her Form-26 Affidavit albeit at a wrong
place due to lack of understanding without any intent to
mislead anyone. According to the Respondent No. 1, there is
no defect which is substantial in nature in her Form-26
Affidavit.
[17.8] With regard to the issue No. 3, it is the case of the Respondent
No. 1 that the entry of the purchase cost of the homestead land
of the petitioner's spouse under Patta No. 106 (Old) 214 (New)
covered by C.S. Dag No. 837 of Village No. 46-Naoriya
Pakhanglakpa (Exhibit P-1/41) as Rupees 1,40,000/- instead
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
of 5,40,000/- at Para 7 Part B(iv) of the Form-26 Affidavit of the
Respondent No. 1 was an inadvertent error due to
typographical mistake.
It has been submitted on behalf of the Respondent
No. 3 that the said entry was not a deliberate mis-statement
intent to mislead anyone but purely typographical mistake and
that the petitioner collaborated the same in her deposition as
well as at the time of her cross-examination by stating that
she came to know about the mistake only after the present
election petition was filed and when pointed out by her
counsel. According to the Respondent No. 1, such an
inadvertent error cause due to typographical mistake is not a
defect which is substantial in nature.
[17.9] Following case laws have been cited in support submissions
made on behalf of the respondent No. 1:-
(1) (1969) 2 SCC 452 "Kabul Singh v. Kundan Singh & ors."
wherein it has been held as under:-
"8. It is not the case of the appellant that Tarsem Singh had incurred any
of the disqualifications mentioned therein. No other provision of law
in the Act or in any other law was brought to our notice disqualifying
him from exercising his vote. The right to vote being purely a
statutory right, the validity of any vote has to be examined on the
basis of the provisions of the Act. We cannot travel outside those
provisions to find out whether a particular vote was a valid vote or
not. In view of Section 30 of the 1950 Act, civil courts have no
jurisdiction to entertain or adjudicate upon any question whether any
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
person is or is not entitled to register himself in the electoral roll in a
constituency or to question the illegality of the action taken by or
under the authority of the Electoral Registration Officer or any
decision given by any authority appointed under that Act for the
revision of any such roll. Part III of the 1950 Act deals with the
preparation of rolls in a constituency. The provisions contained
therein prescribe the qualifications for being registered as a voter
(Section 19), disqualifications which disentitle a person from being
registered as a voter (Section 16), revision of the rolls (Section 21),
correction of entries in the electoral rolls (Section 22), inclusion of
the names in the electoral rolls (Section 23), appeals against orders
passed by the concerned authorities under Sections 22 and 23
(Section 24). Sections 14 to 24 of the 1950 Act are integrated
provisions. They form a complete code by themselves in the matter
of preparation and maintenance of electoral rolls. It is clear from
those provisions that the entries found in the electoral roll are final
and they are not open to challenge either before a civil court or before
a tribunal which considers the validity of any election. In B.M.
Ramaswamy v. B.M. Krishnamurthy this Court came to the
conclusion that the finality of the electoral roll cannot be challenged
in a proceeding challenging the validity of the election."
(2) (2023) 16 SCC 279 "Senthilbalaji v. A.P. Geetha & ors."
wherein it has been held as under:-
"11. The learned counsel submitted that while dealing with applications
under Order 7 Rule 11 or Order 6 Rule 16CPC, the court cannot adopt
a hypertechnical approach. Relying upon what is held in para 9
of a judgment of a Constitution Bench of this Court in Balwan
Singh v. Lakshmi Narain, he submitted that an opportunity is always
available to the election petitioner to apply for amendment of the
election petition for incorporating particulars or for amplifying the
particulars. He invited our attention to the impugned order and urged
that the High Court has correctly applied settled legal principles and
therefore, no interference is called for."
(3) (2012) 11 SCC 390 "Shambhu Prasad Sharma v. Charandas
Mahant & ors." wherein it has been held as under:-
"15. Suffice it to say that the case pleaded by the appellant was not one
of complete failure of the requirement of filing an affidavit in terms of
the judgment of this Court and the instructions given by the Election
Commission but a case where even according to the appellant the
affidavits were not in the required format. What is significant is that
the election petition did not make any averment leave alone disclose
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
material facts in that regard suggesting that there were indeed any
outstanding dues payable to any financial institution or the
Government by the returned candidate or any other candidate whose
nomination papers were accepted. The objection raised by the
appellant was thus in the nature of an objection to form rather than
substance of the affidavit, especially because it was not disputed
that the affidavits filed by the candidates showed the outstandings
to be nil."
"16. The directions issued by this Court, and those issued by the Election
Commission make the filing of an affidavit an essential part of the
nomination papers, so that absence of an affidavit may itself render
a nomination paper non est in the eye of the law. But where an
affidavit has been filed by the candidate and what is pointed out is
only a defect in the format of the affidavit or the like, the question of
acceptance or rejection of the paper shall have to be viewed in the
light of sub-section (4) of Section 36 of the Act which reads:
"36.(4) The Returning Officer shall not reject any nomination paper
on the ground of any defect which is not of a substantial
character."
"17. Even the instructions issued to the Returning Officers point out that
a nomination paper shall not be rejected unless the defect is of a
substantial character. The instructions issued to the Returning
Officers in the Handbook published by the Election Commission
enumerate, though not exhaustively, what can be said to be grounds
for rejection of the nomination papers. Para 10.1(vii) reads:
"10.1 You must reject a nomination paper, if:
* * *
(vii) The nomination paper is not substantially in the prescribed
form, or
* * *
"18. From the above it is evident that the form of the nomination papers
is not considered sacrosanct. What is to be seen is whether there is
a substantial compliance with the requirement as to form. Every
departure from the prescribed format cannot, therefore, be made a
ground for rejection of the nomination paper."
"19. In the case at hand, the appellant alleges that the affidavit did not in
the prescribed format state whether the candidates had any
outstanding liabilities qua financial institutions or the Government.
Now a departure from the format may assume some importance if the
appellant alleged that there were such outstanding liabilities which
were concealed by the candidates. That, however, is not the case of
the appellant. Any departure from the prescribed format for
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
disclosure of information about the dues, if any, payable to the
financial institutions or the Government will not be of much
significance, especially when the declaration made by the returned
candidate in his affidavit clearly stated that no such dues were
recoverable from the deponent. The departure from the format was
not, in the circumstances, of a substantial character on which the
nomination papers of the returned candidate could be lawfully
rejected by the Returning Officer."
(4) (2014) 14 SCC 162 "Kisan Shankar Kathore v. Arun
Dattatray Sawant & ors." wherein it has been held as
under:-
"38. With these remarks we proceed to deal with the first aspect. Insofar
as non-disclosure of the electricity dues is concerned, in the given
facts of the case, we are of the opinion that it may not be a serious
lapse. No doubt, the dues were outstanding, at the same time, there
was a bona fide dispute about the outstanding dues in respect of the
first electricity meter. It would have been better on the part of the
appellant to give the information along with a note about the dispute,
as suggested by the High Court, we still feel that when the appellant
nurtured belief in a bona fide manner that because of the said dispute
he is not to give the information about the outstanding amount, as it
had not become "payable", this should not be treated as a material
lapse. Likewise, as far as the second electricity meter is concerned,
it was in the premises which was rented out to the tenants and the
dues were payable by the tenants in the first instance. Again, in such
circumstances, one can bona fide believe that the tenants would pay
the outstanding amount. No doubt, if the tenants do not pay the
amount the liability would have been that of the owner i.e. the
appellant. However, at the time of filing the nomination, the appellant
could not presume that the tenants would not pay the amount and,
therefore, it had become his liability. Same is the position with regard
to non-payment of a sum of Rs 1783 as outstanding municipal dues,
where there was a genuine dispute as to revaluation and
reassessment for the purpose of assessing the taxes was yet to be
undertaken. Having said so, we may clarify that it would depend on
the facts and circumstances of each case as to whether such a non-
disclosure would amount to material lapse or not. We are, thus,
clarifying that our aforesaid observation in the facts of the present
case should not be treated as having general application."
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
[18] I have considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the
petitioner and Respondent No. 1 and also examined all the relevant
materials available on record with regard to Issue No. 2.
The case of the petitioner is that the Respondent No. 1 by
stating "N/A" at Para. 7 Part-B(ii) of the Form-26 Affidavit for disclosure
of non-agricultural land against the column of spouse, the Respondent
No. 1 concealed or did not disclose the vital information that the
Respondent No. 1's spouse have non-agricultural land and that
such non-disclosures are defects, which is substantial in character.
According to the petitioner, the Returning Officer ought to have rejected
her nominations paper specially when the Returning Officer have
knowledge that there are three residential lands belonging to the
spouse of the respondent No. 1 which were disclosed at Para. 7
Part -B(iv) of the Form-26 Affidavit.
[19] On the other hand, the case of the Respondent No. 1 is that
there is only two types of land in the State of Manipur as per the land
laws of the State of Manipur and there is no column to be fill up under
Form-26 Affidavit for the homestead land. According to the Respondent
No. 1, all the required detailed particulars of the three homestead lands
of her spouse have been clearly and elaborately disclosed at Para. 7
Part-B(iv) of the Form-26 Affidavit and that such detailed particulars of
the said three homestead land of her spouse will be exactly the same
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
as those required under Para. 7 Part-B(ii) of the Form-26 Affidavit.
Accordingly, there has been no concealment or non-disclosure of the
detailed particulars of the three homestead lands and as such, there is
not defect which is substantial in nature.
[20] Para. 7 Part-B(ii) and (iv) of the Form-26 Affidavit of the
Respondent No. 1 (Exhibit P-1/32 (Colly.)) are as under:-
Sl. Description Self Spouse HUF Dep Dep Dep
No. end end end
ent- ent- ent-
1 2 3
(ii) Non-Agricultural N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Land
Location(s)
Survey number (s)
Area (total N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
measurement in
sq. ft.)
Whether Inherited N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
property (Yes or
No)
Date of purchase N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
in case of
self-acquired
property
Cost of Land (in N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
case of purchase)
at the time of
purchase
Any Investment on N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
the land by way of
development,
construction etc.
Approximate N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
current market
value
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
Sl. Description Self Spouse HUF Dep Dep Dep
No. end end end
ent- ent- ent-
1 2 3
(iv) Residential N/A (i) Under Patta No. N/A N/A N/A N/A
Buildings 106 (Old)/ 214(New)
(including Dag No. 837, Village
apartments): - No.46- Naoriya
Location (s) Pakhanglakpa,
Survey number(s) Imphal West
(ii) Under patta
No. 265(Old)/598/
1598(New) Dag
No. 758/1795,
Village No. 46-
Naoriya
Pakhanglakpa,
Imphal West.
(iii) Under Patta
No. 964/1601(Old)/
964/1601 (New)
Dag No. 1184/1799,
Village No. 46-
Naoriya
Pakhanglakpa,
Imphal West
Area (Total N/A (i) 1797.7212 sq ft. N/A N/A N/A N/A
measurement in
(ii) 2120.5008 sq ft.
sq. ft)
(iii) 2290.3848 sq. ft.
Built up Area (Total N/A (i) 1797.7212 sq. ft. N/A N/A N/A N/A
measurement in
(il) 2120.5008 sq. ft.
sq. ft.)
(Ili) 2290.3848 sq. ft.
Whether inherited N/A (i) No N/A N/A N/A N/A
property (Yes or
(il) Yes
No)
(iii) Yes
Date of purchase N/A (i) 27/10/2017 N/A N/A N/A N/A
in case of
self-acquired
property
Cost of property (in N/A Rs. 1,40,000/- N/A N/A N/A N/A
case of purchase)
at the time of
purchase
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
Sl. Description Self Spouse HUF Dep Dep Dep
No. end end end
ent- ent- ent-
1 2 3
Any Investment on N/A Rs. 1,30,45,800/- N/A N/A N/A N/A
the land by way of
development,
construction etc.
Approximate N/A Rs. 1,30,45,800/- N/A N/A N/A N/A
current market
value
(v) Other (such as N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
interest in
property)
(vi) Total of current Rs. 4,75, 000/- Rs. 1,38,85,800/- N/A N/A N/A N/A
market value of (i)
to (v) above
[21] On a careful examination of the above quoted 2 clause i.e., (ii)
and (iv), it can be clearly seen that each and every detailed particulars/
information as required to be disclosed under clause (ii) have been
elaborately disclosed by the Respondent No. 1 at clause (iv).
Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the Respondent
No. 4 has disclosed all the required vital information with regard to
the three homestead lands of her spouse albeit at clause (iv) of her
Form-26 Affidavit and there has been no concealment of facts. The only
question that arose for consideration is what will be the effect of
non-disclosure of the required information in respect of the three
homestead lands of the spouse of the Respondent No. 1 at
clause (ii) also and whether such lapses will be deemed to be a defect
of substantial nature.
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
[22] It is the case of the Respondent No. 1 that as there is only two
classification of land i.e., Homestead Land and Agricultural Land under
the land laws of the State of Manipur and as there is no column to be
filled up for homestead land in the Form-26 Affidavit, she has disclosed
the details of the said three homestead lands of her spouse at Para. 7
Part-B(iv) and stated "N/A" at Para. 7 Part-B(ii) due to lack of knowledge
and without any intention to mislead.
[23] In the present case, even if, this Court rejects the contention
of the Respondent No. 1 that homestead land is not a non-agricultural
land, the facts still remain that each and every required particulars/
information of the three homestead land belonging to the spouse of the
Respondent No. 1 are disclosed by the Respondent No. 1 in full detail
at clause (iv) instead of at clause (ii) of Para. 7 Part-B of the Form-26
Affidavit of the Respondent No. 1. Thereafter, all the required detailed
particulars of the three homestead lands belonging to the spouse of the
Respondent No. 3 were displayed before the public domain and as
such, this court cannot come to the conclusion that the Respondent
No. 1 had concealed any vital information/ particulars in connection
with the three homestead lands belonging to her spouse. Even if, the
Respondent No. 1 is required to disclose the information/ particulars of
the said homestead land at clause (ii) of Para. 7 Part-B of the Form-26
Affidavit, it will only be repetition of the information/ particulars that
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
have been disclosed by the Respondent No. 1 at clause (iv) of Para. 7
Part-B of the said Form-26 Affidavit and there will be no substantial
changes thereto.
[24] In the case of "Ajmera Shyam Vs. Kova Laxmi & ors."
reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1723, the Hon'ble Apex Court held
as under:-
"10.2 The main issue as discussed above in this case is whether non-
disclosure of income, as per the income tax return for four years in
Form 26 Affidavit, and showing it as 'NIL' in the relevant column,
amounts to concealment of asset-related information and whether
this constitutes a material defect that would make the acceptance of
the Respondent No. 1's nomination improper, thereby attracting the
penal clause of Section 100(1)(d)(i) of the Act.
Furthermore, whether such non-disclosure constitutes a
corrupt practice that renders the election of Respondent No. 1 void
under Section 100(1)(b), and whether it also amounts to non-
compliance with the provisions of the Act and Rules, making the
election of Respondent No. 1 liable to be declared void under Section
100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act."
"10.7 This Court, in numerous decisions, has held that non-disclosure of
assets by candidates and/or their wives and dependents, which is
not in conformity with the provisions of the Act and Rules, would
render the acceptance of their nomination improper. Such non-
disclosure would also amount to a corrupt practice. Therefore, the
election of any candidate who has not disclosed their assets could
be declared void under Section 100 of the Act."
"10.10 At the same time, this Court has also held that the mere failure to
disclose assets in the affidavit, if it does not constitute a material
defect and is not of a substantial character, will not make the
acceptance of the nomination improper, thus invalidating the
election.
Further, whether the non-disclosure of assets is of a
substantial character or not, must be determined by the court based
on the specific facts of each case, as observed by this Court
in Karikho Kri v. Nuney Tayang, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 519 as follows:
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
"40. Having considered the issue, we are of the firm view that every
defect in the nomination cannot straightaway be termed to be of
such character as to render its acceptance improper and each
case would have to turn on its own individual facts, in so far as
that aspect is concerned. The case law on the subject also
manifests that this Court has always drawn a distinction between
non-disclosure of substantial issues as opposed to insubstantial
issues, which may not impact one's candidature or the result of
an election. The very fact that Section 36 (4) of the Act of 1951
speaks of the Returning Officer not rejecting a nomination
unless he is of the opinion that the defect is of a substantial
nature demonstrates that this distinction must always be kept in
mind and there is no absolute mandate that every non-
disclosure, irrespective of its gravity and impact, would
automatically amount to a defect of substantial nature, thereby
materially affecting the result of the election or amounting to
'undue influence' so as to qualify as a corrupt practice."
It was further observed that,
"44. Though it has been strenuously contended before us that the
voter's 'right to know' is absolute and a candidate contesting the
election must be forthright about all his particulars, we are not
inclined to accept the blanket proposition that a candidate is
required to lay his life out threadbare for examination by the
electorate. ............... Every case would have to turn on its own
peculiarities and there can be no hard and fast or straitjacketed
rule as to when the nondisclosure of a particular movable asset
by a candidate would amount to a defect of a substantial
character............."
"10.11 Section 36 (4) of the Act clearly states that the Returning Officer shall
not reject any nomination paper on the basis of a defect that is not
of a substantial character. Consequently, if the defect is not
considered substantial, the nomination cannot be rejected, and
acceptance of such nomination cannot be deemed improper to
invoke the provisions of Section 100 (1)(d)(i) of the Act."
"10.12 Applying the same legal standard, consequently, if such defect in not
disclosing the assets or income is not of a substantial nature, it
cannot be said to be a corrupt practice within the meaning of Section
100(1)(b) of the Act.
For the same reasons, the provisions of Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of
the Act cannot be attracted, if the defect is not a material one."
"10.13 Thus, in the present case, as we examine the issue as to whether
non-disclosure of income as shown in the income tax return for four
years amounts to non-compliance with the mandate of Rule 4A of the
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
Rules, and if so, whether the acceptance of the nomination paper of
Respondent No. 1 was improper to attract the provisions of Section
100(1)(d)(i), Section 100(1)(b), or Section 100(1)(d)(iv), it must first be
ascertained whether such a defect of non-disclosure was of a
substantial character under the circumstances. If it is so proved, it
has to be then determined whether, this will attract adverse actions
contemplated under Section 100, which the election petitioner, the
Appellant herein, seeks to invoke."
"10.24 It is also not the case that Respondent No. 1 did not disclose her
Income Tax Returns at all. She did disclose her Income Tax Returns
for the Financial Year 2022-2023, which is reflective of her assets and
income. Hence, unless it is shown that the assets and income during
the other financial years were substantially in variance and these
were not disclosed, not much grievance can be made by the election
petitioner, for these income tax returns not disclosed would not have
been in variance substantially from the Income Tax Return already
filed. However, nothing has been shown by the election petitioner
about any disproportionately higher income vis-à-vis the sources of
income in respect of the period for which the income tax returns had
not been filed."
"10.25 The matter could have been, however, entirely different had there
been an averment made by the election petitioner that the returned
candidate deliberately did not disclose the income tax returns to hide
her real income and assets during that period, or that the returned
candidate had accumulated wealth disproportionate to her income,
which could have been detected from the income tax returns that
were never filed. In that case, one could say without any hesitation
that the information withheld was significant enough to invoke the
penal provisions of Section 100(1)(d)(i) for improperly accepting
the Respondent No. 1's nomination. Similarly, under such
circumstances, the provisions of Section 100(1)(b) or Section
100(1)(d)(iv) could also have been invoked."
"10.26 Under the circumstances, since there is no serious dispute about the
assets and the source of income of Respondent No. 1 which have
been already disclosed, non-disclosure of income tax returns,
though a procedural and technical defect, in our opinion, does not
amount to misrepresentation or non-disclosure of assets which is of
consequence."
"10.27 It is also noted that Respondent No. 1 had not left the relevant column
in the Affidavit blank, which would have made the nomination paper
fatally defective and liable to be rejected, as per the judgment
in Resurgence India (supra)."
"10.28 As already discussed above, this Court has held as in the case
of Karikho Kri (supra) that what needs to be examined in cases of
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
non-disclosure of information of assets is whether such non-
disclosure is of a substantive nature or not. If it is found that the non-
disclosure was not of substantial character, the court need not
interfere with the election. The court must, therefore, determine
whether there was substantial compliance with the legal
requirements, or if the deficiency was merely technical or procedural,
before the court proceeds to interfere with the election."
"10.29 Examined from the above perspective, it is noted that Respondent
No. 1 did not make a false statement or attempt to mislead the voters
by providing erroneous information about the net income or assets
as required under Para 4 of the Affidavit."
This is not a case of providing false information or engaging in
disinformation, but rather a failure to provide certain information
concerning the assets which, in our opinion, as mentioned above,
does not amount to a defect of substantial character warranting
declaration of Respondent No. 1's election as void.
The present case does not involve any concealment or
misrepresentation of criminal antecedents that would warrant
censure under the statutory framework or lead to judicial invalidation
of the election. The issue here is of lack of full disclosure of
information concerning income tax returns of the returned candidate
which is of inconsequential import."
"10.32 What is also to be noted in the present case is that apart from the fact
that there was no objection at the time of scrutiny, during the election
trial, no material has been produced by the election petitioner
regarding the non-disclosure of any material information by the
returned candidate, which would have had a significant impact on
the adequacy or inadequacy of the information regarding the
disclosed assets and income of the returned candidate."
"10.33 Regarding the plea of the election petitioner that Respondent No. 1's
election be declared as void due to non-compliance with the
provisions of the Constitution, the Act, or rules or orders made under
the Act, it must be demonstrated that such non-compliance was of a
substantial nature, and that it materially affected the result of the
election as far as the Respondent No. 1 is concerned, which is not
the case here."
"10.34 We are, thus, of the view that merely because a returned candidate
has not disclosed certain information related to the assets, courts
should not rush to invalidate the election by adopting a highly
pedantic and fastidious approach, unless it is shown that such
concealment or non-disclosure was of such magnitude and
substantial nature that it could have influenced the election result.
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
In this case, it has not been demonstrated that such
concealment or non-disclosure of certain information related to
assets was of a substantial nature that could have materially affected
the result of the election of the returned candidate. Of course, it was
observed by this Court in Lok Prahari (supra), S. Rukmini
Madegowda (supra), etc., that if it is found that there has been non-
disclosure of assets, it amounts to a corrupt practice. But the non-
disclosure of income as per Income Tax Return in the present case,
as discussed above, is not of a substantial nature to be considered
a corrupt practice."
"10.35 The true test, in our opinion, would be whether the non-disclosure of
information about assets in any case is of consequential or
inconsequential import, finding of which will be the basis for
declaring the election valid or void as the case may be."
"11.2 In the light of the legal position exposited, on examination of the facts
in the peculiar background obtaining in the case, we hold that the
non-disclosure of income in the income tax return for four financial
years by Respondent No. 1, is not a defect of substantial character.
Therefore, the nomination could not have been rejected under
Section 36(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 as
contended by the Appellant and hence, no illegality was committed
by the Returning Officer in accepting the nomination of the
Respondent No. 1. Resultantly, the penal clause cannot be invoked
to invalidate Respondent No. 1's election under Section 100(1)(d)(i)
of the Act on the ground that the nomination of Respondent No. 1
was improperly accepted."
[25] In the present case, it is not a case where the Respondent
No. 1 had deliberately concealed or not disclosed vital information with
regard to the three homestead lands of her spouse nor is it the case of
filing an affidavit with blank columns. Even though this court agrees and
come to the conclusion that there is a defect while filling up clause (ii) of
Para. 7 Part-B of the Form-26 Affidavit by the Respondent No. 1, the
question that still remains to be considered by this court is whether the
said defect is substantial in character and whether such a defect would
materially affect the result of the election of the Respondent No. 1.
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
As elaborately stated hereinabove, the Respondent No. 1 has
disclosed all the relevant and required facts/ informations with regard
to the said three homestead lands of her spouse at Para. 7 Part-B(iv)
of the Form-26 Affidavit and that there is no deliberate and intentional
concealment or non-disclosure of those facts by the Respondent No. 1.
In my considered view, the Respondent No. 1 has substantially complied
with the mandate of law while filling up her Form-26 Affidavit and that the
said defect committed by her while filling up clause (ii) of Para. 7 Part-B
of her Form-26 Affidavit is only a defect, which is not substantial in
character.
[26] Under Section 36(iv) of the RP Act, 1951, it is provided that the
Returning Officer shall not reject any nomination paper on ground of
any defect which is not of a substantial in character. Since this court
found that the defect which occurred while filling up clause (ii) of Para. 7
Part-B of the Respondent No. 1's Form-26 Affidavit is not a defect
which is substantial in character and that the Respondent No. 1 had
substantially complied with the mandate of law while filling up the
said clause (ii) of Para. 7 Part-B of the Form-26 Affidavit, this court
is of the considered view that the Returning Officer have rightly
and legally accepted the nomination paper filed by the Respondent
No. 1. Accordingly, the Issue No. 2 is decided in favour of the
Respondent No. 1 and against the petitioner.
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
[27] With regard to the Issue No. 3, the case of the petitioner is that
the declaration made by the Respondent No. 1 at Para. 7 Part-B(iv) of
the Form-26 Affidavit with regard to the cost of the homestead land
purchased by her spouse is a false statement and amounts to swearing
of a false Affidavit. On the other hand, the case of the Respondent
No. 1 is that the entry of the cost of the homestead land purchased
by her spouse at Para. 7 Part-B clause (iv) of her Form-26 Affidavit
was an inadvertent error due to typographical mistake and that the
said entry was not a deliberate mis-statement intended to misled anyone
but purely a typographical mistake.
In the present case, the Respondent No. 1 has entered
₹ 1,40,000/- as cost of the property purchased by her spouse at Para. 7
Part-B clause (iv) of her Form-26 Affidavit. The petitioner has filed a
certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 10-11-2017 (Exhibit P-1/44
(Colly.)) in respect of the said homestead land/ property and in the
said Sale Deed, the cost of the said homestead land/ property is clearly
shown as ₹ 5,40,000/-. Thus, the petitioner has proved that the
cost of the said homestead land/ property is not ₹ 1,40,000/- but
₹ 5,40,000/-. In fact, the Respondent No. 1 did not deny that the
cost of the said homestead land/ property is ₹ 5,40,000/- at the time
of purchase. Her explanation is that the wrong entry made by her
at Para. 7 Part-B(iv) of her Form-26 Affidavit with regard to the said
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
homestead land/ property of her spouse was an inadvertent error due
to typographical mistake.
[28] The question which arose for consideration by this court is
whether the declaration made by the Respondent No. 1 at Para. 7
Part-B clause (iv) with regard to the cost of the homestead land/ property
of her spouse will amount to a false statement and filing of a false
affidavit. As the Respondent No. 1 has entered ₹ 1,40,000 instead of the
actual cost/ price of the said property as recorded in the Sale Deed,
which is ₹ 5,40,000/-, it is obvious that the said entry made by the
Respondent No. 1 is a false statement. However, since the Respondent
No. 1 has stated that the said wrong entry of the cost of the property of
her spouse was an inadvertent error due to typographical mistake, which
she came to know only after filing of the present election petition and
when her counsel pointed out such mistake to her, this court proceeds
to consider whether the said false declaration is purely a typographical
mistake and whether such a false declaration will materially affect the
result of the election of the Respondent No. 1.
[29] In the case of "Shri Pukhrem Sharatchandra Singh Vs.
Mairembam Prithviraj @ Prithibiraj Singh", reported in 2016 SCC
OnLine Mani 30, a coordinate bench of this court has occasioned to
observe as under:-
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
"90. .... Clerical error as in the normal parlance would mean a mistake
which may have crept in inadvertently and unintentionally, due to
certain typographical or mechanical mistake. Such a clerical error,
therefore, would be a mistake which was unintended, but purely due
to inadvertence which could be corrected without making any
fundamental changes in the instrument or the document. "Clerical
error" has been defined in Black's Law Dictionary, 10th Edition as
"An error resulting from a minor mistake or inadvertence and not
from judicial reasoning or determination; esp., a drafter's or
typist's technical error that can be rectified without serious doubt
about the correct reading. Among the numberless possible
examples of clerical errors are omitting an appendix from a
document; typing an incorrect number; mis-transcribing or
omitting an obviously needed word; and failing to log a call. A
court can correct a clerical error in the record at any time, even
after judgment has been entered."
"91. This expression has been also interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Sooraj Devi v. Pyare Lal, (1981) 1 SCC 500 as follows:
"4. ..... A clerical or arithmetical error is an error occasioned by an
accidental slip or omission of the court. It represents that which
the court never intended to say. It is an error apparent on the
face of the record and does not depend for its discovery on
argument or disputation. An arithmetical error is a mistake of
calculation, and a clerical error is a mistake in writing or
typing. Master Construction Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of Orissa6.
"92. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the issue of a defect
which was held to be a technical one and not of substantial character,
in Harikrishna Lal v. Babu Lal Marandi, (2003) 8 SCC 613, referred to
the maxim "falsa demonstratio non nocet, cum de corpore constat"
to show that if part of a description of an instrument is correct, and
which correct part describes the subject with sufficient legal clarity,
the untrue part will not vitiate the instrument as held in para 13 thereof
which is reproduced hereinbelow:
"13. A reference may usefully be made to the maxim "falsa
demonstratio non nocet, cum de corpore constat" which means
mere false description does not vitiate, if there be sufficient
certainty as to the object. "Falsa demonstratio" means an
erroneous description of a person or a thing in a written
instrument; and the above rule respecting it signifies that where
the description is made up of more than one part, and one part is
true, but the other false, there, if the part which is true describes
the subject with sufficient legal certainty, the untrue part will be
rejected and will not vitiate the device; the characteristic of cases
within the rule being that the description, so far as it is false,
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
applies to no subject at all, and, so far as it is true, applies to one
only. (See Broom's Legal Maxims, 10th Edn., pp. 426-27th.) Broom
quotes (at p. 438) an example that an error in the proper name or
in the surname of the legatee should not make the legacy void,
provided it could be understood from the Will what person was
intended to be benefited thereby."
[30] In the case of "Ajmera Shyam (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex
Court held as under:-
"9.3.3 As regards the other grounds concerning improper acceptance or
rejection of nominations, or the non-compliance with the provisions
of the Constitution, or the Act, or rules, or orders made under the
Act, it is observed that these issues are mainly technical and involve
some element of subjectivity, since no nomination paper can be
rejected for a defect that is not of a substantial character as provided
under Section 36 (4) of the Act.
"9.4 In light of the foregoing legal position, it is clear that disclosure
concerning criminal antecedents is linked to the existing provisions
under Section 8 and 9 of the Act, which specify that a candidate
would be disqualified if convicted of any offences listed under
Section 8 or dismissed for corruption or disloyalty under Section 9
of the Act.
"9.5 However, regarding voidance of the election of the returned
candidates due to non-disclosure of assets, it is not explicitly stated
in the Act. It has become part of election law through judicial
intervention and it is to be mentioned as part of the Form 26 Affidavit
filed during the nomination process, as discussed above.
"9.6 At the same time, it has to be kept in mind that considering the
evolution of law concerning disclosure of information relating to
criminal antecedents and assets and the "raison d'etre" for the same,
these considerations cannot be placed at the same pedestal. By its
very nature, the requirement to disclose criminal antecedents has to
be examined more scrupulously and dealt with more strictly as the
involvement of criminals is a bane in our electoral system, which was
the prime focus of judicial intervention which is reflected in the
insertion of Section 33A of the Act. On the other hand, disclosure of
information about assets and educational qualification were
attending requirements to improve the quality of the electoral
process and the elected members for which no specific statutory
provision has been made in the Act, but forms part of the information
required to be mentioned in the Form 26 Affidavit in terms of
Rule 4A.
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
"9.7 Certainly, there was concern also about assets when it was noticed
that apart from criminal acts of the candidates, money was being
misused by the candidates to influence the voters. Further, it was
also observed that there is a tendency of the elected members to
misuse their official positions to enrich themselves at the expense of
public funds while in office. It is for these reasons that it was felt that
candidates must disclose their assets when seeking re-election.
"9.8 It may, however, be noted that there can be no disqualification under
the law based on a candidate's wealth or financial status unlike in the
case of candidates with criminal antecedents, who will stand
disqualified if convicted of certain offences mentioned under Section
8 of the Act. There is no restriction on contesting an election due to
having immense wealth or being impoverished in a democracy.
Ultimately, the people elect their representative regardless of the
candidate's financial condition, judging instead primarily on whether
the candidate can genuinely represent their interest.
"9.9 This aspect has been succinctly articulated by P. Venkatarama
Reddi, J in PUCL (supra) in paragraphs no. 119 and 120 of the
judgment as quoted earlier, which in essence conveys the idea that
the purpose of disclosure of assets and liabilities of the candidate is
not to associate with the prospect or eligibility of his candidature or
his capacity to spend money in the electoral process, but primarily
to evaluate at a subsequent point in time after the election, whether
there has been disproportionate increase in wealth by misusing
official position and by self-aggrandizement.
"9.10 This issue relating to disclosure of information may be viewed from
another perspective.
There is a provision under the statute to probe the nomination
of a candidate before the election is held and result is declared, i.e.,
during the scrutiny by the Returning Officer, who can reject it at the
nomination stage if there has been a failure to disclose necessary
information by the candidate.
This exercise of examining the validity of nomination can also
be undertaken by the Court after the election is over in an election
petition and result is known to the voters, as in the present case.
"9.10.1 This post-election judicial scrutiny about any such irregularity or
deficiency in not disclosing necessary information serves as a
safeguard against arbitrary actions by the Returning Officer or any
injustice caused to a candidate.
"9.10.2 Nevertheless, there is a qualitative difference between these two
stages in examining the issue of non-disclosure of information. At
the time the Returning Officer scrutinizes the nomination papers of
the candidates, the voters are yet to express their mind through the
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
ballot box. However, once the election is concluded and the voters
have delivered their verdict and the same has been made public, a
new dimension is introduced -- that is, the people's mandate, which
cannot be overlooked by the court when examining the legality of
the acceptance of the nomination.
"9.10.3 Election is a hugely expensive and time-consuming process
involving not only the candidates in the race but also the vast
electorate, who take their valuable time off, to exercise their
franchise and choose their representatives. Several State agencies
are also involved in ensuring proper and smooth conduct of the
elections. A successful election results from the coordinated efforts
of various agencies where significant time and national resources
are invested. Based on the electoral outcome, the process of
forming a new government gets activated, and any interference with
the election result would have a bearing on the government
formation. Hence, any tinkering with the election result has the
potential to undermine the voice of the people and their participation
in shaping the government."
"9.10.4 In a democracy, the will of the people expressed through election is
sacrosanct, which in Latin, is conveyed by the maxim, "Vox Populi,
Vox Dei," signifying that the voice of the people and collective
wisdom should be respected which can even be placed on the
highest pedestal of divine authority."
"9.10.5 As noted above, participation by voters who are well-informed not
only of the affairs of the state but also with knowledge of the
candidates' backgrounds invigorates the electoral process,
reaffirming that election is one of the fundamental features of
democracy. Voters obtain essential information about the
candidates through the exercise of the fundamental right to know
about them, derived from Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
This right to know the backgrounds of candidates, which
corresponds to their obligation to disclose such information, must,
however, be balanced with the people's mandate expressed through
ballot boxes, which is central to democracy."
"9.10.6 Under the circumstances, once the people have spoken their mind
by casting their votes through the ballot box and reposed their
confidence in the elected candidate, whenever the issue of
invalidating the people's mandate is raised before the court, the
court must be very careful and circumspect.
A fine balance must be struck between holding free and fair
election-- which involves the fundamental right of voters to have
information about the candidates-- and maintaining the sanctity of
the mandate of the voters upon the declaration of the result. After
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
all, election result is the embodiment of the will of the people
expressed through the exercise of the constitutional right of the
people to vote.
The court, therefore, must keep in mind that declaring an
election void solely for non-disclosure of assets, if it lacks
substantiality, could undermine the validity of the popular mandate.
To nullify the choice of the people on a minor technicality and
insignificant non-disclosure of assets by the elected candidate,
would have serious repercussions on the democratic process.
Thus, while the court plays a vital role in upholding the rule of
law, utmost care must be taken to ensure that election results are
not invalidated based on subjective interpretation and minor or
technical irregularities that do not substantially impinge on the law,
since unwarranted interference with the electoral process and
overturning election results can erode public trust in democratic
institutions."
"9.10.7 Under such circumstances, nullifying the election result and
overturning the people's verdict through cold, clinical legal analysis
and tools should be avoided, unless the electoral process has been
vitiated by gross irregularities that undermine electoral integrity.
Courtroom interventions should only happen when there are clear
and blatant violations of the law that threaten fairness, legality, and
constitutional principles."
"9.10.8 Minor procedural errors or purely technical objections of
inconsequential nature thus, should not be allowed to override the
mandate of the electorate. Courts must be careful not to become
tools that undermine the popular mandate in the name of technical
perfection. The will of the people, expressed through the election
result, should be respected, unless it has been corrupted by
fraudulent practices, in which case, the court should intervene
without hesitation. A judicial victory based on technicalities rather
than the electoral victory won in the electoral battlefield should be
avoided, unless the mandate and the integrity of the electoral
process are compromised by fraud or corrupt practices.
"9.11 Statutory provisions and judicial approach in elections law have also
been shaped by this cautious approach.
It is for this reason that it has been aptly noted by this Court
in Jagan Nath v. Jaswant Singh, (1954) 1 SCC 57 as follows:
"7. The general rule is well settled that the statutory requirements of
election law must be strictly observed and that an election
contest is not an action at law or a suit in equity but is a purely
statutory proceeding unknown to the common law and that the
court possesses no common law power. It is also well settled that
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
it is a sound principle of natural justice that the success of a
candidate who has won at an election should not be lightly
interfered with and any petition seeking such interference must
strictly conform to the requirements of the law. None of these
propositions however have any application if the special law itself
confers authority on a tribunal to proceed with a petition in
accordance with certain procedure and when it does not state the
consequences of non-compliance with certain procedural
requirements laid down by it. It is always to be borne in mind that
though the election of a successful candidate is not to be lightly
interfered with, one of the essentials of that law is also to
safeguard the purity of the election process and also to see that
people do not get elected by flagrant breaches of that law or by
corrupt practices......."
"9.11.1 This word of caution against overturning electoral verdicts by the
courts was pithily put by this Court in Madhukar G.E.
Pankakar v. Jaswant Chobbildas Rajani, (1977) 1 SCC 70 in the
following words:
"6. It is plain democratic sense that the electoral process should
ordinarily receive no judicial jolt except where pollution of
purity or contravention of legal mandates invite the court's
jurisdiction to review the result and restore legality, legitimacy
and respect for norms. The frequency of forensic overturning
of poll verdicts injects instability into the electoral system,
kindles hopes in worsted candidates and induces post-mortem
discoveries of "disqualifications" as a desperate gamble in the
system of fluctuating litigative fortunes. This is a caveat
against overuse of the court as an antidote for a poll defeat. Of
course, where a clear breach is made out, the guns of law shall
go into action, and not retreat from the rule of law.
Similar view was expressed by this Court in Santosh
Yadav v. Narender Singh, (2002) 1 SCC 160."
[31] In the present case instead of ₹ 5,40,000/-, the Respondent
No. 1 had written ₹ 1,40,000/-. Therefore, the difference or the mistake
is only in respect of one numerical digit, i.e., instead of digit '5', digit '1'
had been written. In a plain view of the matter, this court is of the
considered view that any prudent man will agree that there is a chance
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
of the difference being committed inadvertently due to typographical
mistake and the possibility of committing such mistake inadvertently at
the time of filling up the Form-26 Affidavit cannot be totally ruled out. It
is not a case where the Respondent No. 1 had totally concealed the facts
about the purchase of the said homestead land/ property by her spouse
and also about the cost of the said homestead land/ property. The
petitioner has not also even make a whisper that the Respondent No. 1
had deliberately and intentionally concealed or not disclosed the true and
correct cost of the said property with an ulterior motive to gain an
advantage to secure votes in her favour. This court is also of the view
that had the petitioner or anyone for that matter raised an objection at
the time of scrutiny of the nomination paper with regard to the false
statement made by the Respondent No. 1 in connection with the cost of
the property of her spouse, such defect could have been corrected easily
without any fundamental change in the Form-26 Affidavit as such defect
are simple in nature and no elaborate action is required for making such
correction.
Taking into consideration such factums and keeping in mind
the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
"Ajmera Shyam" (supra), this court comes to the conclusion that the
defect in declaring the cost of the property purchased by her spouse by
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
the Respondent No. 1 at Para. 7 Part-B clause (iv) of her Form-26
Affidavit is a defect which is not substantial in character and that there is
no improper acceptance of the nomination paper filed by the Respondent
No. 1. Accordingly, the Issue No. 3 is also decided in favour of the
Respondent No. 1 and against the petitioner.
[32] It may be noted here that this court has carefully perused all
the case laws cited on behalf of the petitioner and this court is in
respectful agreement with the principles laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India. However, in the facts and circumstances of the
present case and the issues involved in the present case, this court is of
the considered view that the said case laws are of no help to the case of
the petitioner.
[33] Additional Issue
Whether the nomination papers of the Returned Candidate/
Respondent No. 1 was improperly accepted thereby
materially affecting the election of the Respondent No. 1."
In view of the findings given by this court in connection with
the Issues No. 1, 2 and 3, this court is of the considered view that
there is no improperness in accepting the nomination paper of the
Respondent No. 1 by the Returning Officer and that no illegality has
been committed while accepting the nomination paper of the
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
Respondent No. 1. Accordingly, this issue is also decided in favour of
the Respondent No. 1 and against the petitioner.
[34] Issue No. 4:
Whether the petitioner is entitled to be declared as duly elected
member in the 12th Manipur Legislative Assembly Election,
2022 in respect of 21-Naoriya Pakhanglakpa Assembly
Constituency?
In view of the findings arrived at by this court in connection with
the Issues No. 1, 2, 3 and additional issue, this issue is decided against
the petitioner.
Whether the information given by the respondent No. 1 in Form
26 of the Representation of People Act, 1950 was substantially
complied or not?
In view of the findings arrived at by this court in connection with
the Issues No. 1, 2, 3 and additional issue, this issue is decided in favour
of the Respondent No. 1 and against the petitioner.
Whether there is any cause of action in filing the election
petition?
In view of the findings arrived at by this court in connection
with the Issues No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and additional issue, this court is of
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
the view that there is no cause of action for filing the present election
petition.
[37] Issue No. 7:
Whether the election petition is maintainable or not?
As this court has decided all the issues framed by this court
in favour of the Respondent No. 1 and against the petitioner, this court
held that the present election petition is not maintainable.
[38] In the result, the present election petition is hereby
dismissed as being devoid of merit. All the pending misc. applications
stands disposed of accordingly in terms of this judgment and order.
Parties are to bear their own cost.
JUDGE
FR / NFR
Devananda
El. Petn. No. 11 of 2022 Contd.../-
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!
