Delhi Polls: SC says candidates holding back criminal, corruption records risk losing seats later

NEW DELHI: Candidates holding back vital information on criminal or corruption records run the risk of losing their seats later, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday, ahead of the crucial Delhi assembly poll.

Not revealing such material on their nomination papers would amount to denying voters the option of making an informed choice, the court said. “As the candidate has special knowledge of pending cases where cognizance has been taken or charges framed and there is a non-disclosure… it would amount to undue influence and, therefore, the election is to be declared null and void… under Section 100(1)(b) of the 1951 Act,” the court said.

Justices Dipak Misra and Prafulla C Pant were dealing with a petition relating to the Tamil Nadu panchayat polls. Misra is in line to be chief justice in the future. The winning candidate had made a false declaration in the nomination papers, “deliberately suppressing” the fact that he was facing cases over criminal breach of trust and falsifying accounts as president of a cooperative society.


His rival challenged the election, pointing out that the nomination papers should have been rejected by the returning officer and urged the court to set the result aside. The principal district judge of Coimbatore, the election tribunal, had declared the election null and void. In appeal, the high court said that non-disclosure of full information relating to the candidate’s implication in criminal cases amounted to an attempt to interfere with the free exercise of electoral rights which would fall within the meaning of “undue influence” and consequently “corrupt practice”.

On Thursday, the top court gave its seal of approval to the HC ruling. Citing several earlier rulings, the court observed that a voter had a fundamental right to know about candidates as that was an essential and necessary in free and fair elections.

“In a way, it is the first step. The voter is entitled to make a choice after coming to know the antecedents of a candidate,” it said. Misinformation nullifies the very basis of a voter’s choice and eventually promotes criminalisation of politics, the court said.

A candidate is bound to provide all necessary information at the time of filing the nomination and the returning officer can compel the person to furnish such details, the court said.

If a candidate still fails to fill in the blanks, the nomination is liable to be rejected. A candidate has to explicitly remark ‘nil’ or ‘not applicable’ or ‘not known’. Anyone who deliberately avoids mentioning details related to pending criminal cases where cognizance has been taken has to be treated differently, the court said. “This would amount to corrupt practice.”

Under the law, candidates are mandated to reveal whether they are accused of any offence punishable with jail time of two years or more in a pending case in which charges have been framed by a court and also if they have ever been convicted.