Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | SLP(C) No.-012000 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 21395/2025 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ATUL S. CHANDURKAR |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ATUL S. CHANDURKAR |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing statutory scheme and prior Supreme Court precedents on disclosure obligations |
| Type of Law | Municipal / Electoral law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner, convicted under Section 138 NI Act on 07.08.2018 and sentenced to one year’s imprisonment, failed to disclose that conviction in her Rule 24-A affidavit filed on 09.09.2022. The trial court and High Court both held the nomination improperly accepted and set aside her election under Sections 22(1)(d)(i)/(iii) MP Municipalities Act. The Supreme Court dismissed her SLP, reaffirming that subsequent acquittal after nomination date does not cure non-disclosure. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
| Distinguishes |
|
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Rule 24-A(1) affidavit requires disclosure of any conviction leading to imprisonment of one year or more, regardless of moral turpitude.
- Failure to disclose a Section 138 NI Act conviction in the nomination affidavit makes the nomination improperly accepted and directly voids the returned candidate’s election under Section 22(1)(d)(iii) MP Municipalities Act.
- Subsequent setting aside of the conviction after the election does not cure the non-compliance at the time of nomination.
- Courts need not independently prove material effect on voters once improper acceptance of a returned candidate’s nomination is established.
- Voter’s right to information under Article 19(1)(a) reinforces the mandatory nature of disclosure obligations in municipal elections.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Statutory Requirement: Section 22(1)(d)(i)/(iii) MP Municipalities Act permits voiding an election if nomination was improperly accepted or if there was non-compliance with the Act or rules.
- Rule 24-A(1) Obligation: Every municipal candidate must file an affidavit disclosing any conviction with imprisonment ≥ 1 year.
- Disclosure as Voter’s Right: Supreme Court’s ADR & PUCL precedents recognize that free and fair elections require voters to know candidates’ criminal antecedents under Article 19(1)(a).
- Improper Acceptance & Void Election: Failure to disclose the Section 138 NI Act conviction in the affidavit rendered the nomination improperly accepted and, as the returned candidate, her election was void without further proof of material impact.
- Irrelevance of Subsequent Acquittal: Eligibility is determined on the nomination date; post-election acquittal does not validate an improperly accepted nomination.
- Discretion Under Article 136: No exceptional circumstances justified condoning non-disclosure. Supreme Court declined to interfere.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Poonam)
- Non-disclosure of a Section 138 NI Act conviction not involving moral turpitude was immaterial to the election outcome.
- The offence was compoundable and subsequent acquittal on 30.12.2022 nullified any ongoing disqualification.
- First respondent failed to prove that non-disclosure materially affected the election under Section 22(1)(d).
Respondent (Dule Singh & Ors.)
- Conviction under Section 138 NI Act was in force on nomination date, and non-disclosure in Rule 24-A affidavit meant improper acceptance of nomination under Section 22(1)(d)(i).
- Subsequent acquittal after elections is irrelevant; eligibility is assessed at nomination.
- Improper acceptance of the returned candidate’s nomination voids the election without additional proof of material effect.
Factual Background
Poonam was convicted on 07.08.2018 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to one year’s rigorous imprisonment with compensation. When she filed her nomination for Councillor (Ward No. 5, Nagar Parishad Bhikangaon) on 09.09.2022, she failed to disclose this conviction in her Rule 24-A affidavit. An election petition under Section 20 MP Municipalities Act challenged her election; the trial court and High Court held her nomination improperly accepted and set aside her election. She approached the Supreme Court by Special Leave Petition, which dismissed her appeal on 06.11.2025.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 22(1)(d) MP Municipalities Act, 1961: Permits voiding a returned candidate’s election if nomination was improperly accepted or there was non-compliance with the Act or rules.
- Rule 24-A(1), (2), (4), (5) MP Nagar Palika Nirvachan Niyam, 1994:
- (1) Affidavit must declare any pending or disposed criminal case with conviction and sentence ≥ 1 year.
- (2) Nomination paper is rejected if affidavit is not enclosed.
- (4) Returning Officer must publicly display all affidavits for voters’ information.
- (5) Any challenge/affidavit against a candidate’s affidavit is also displayed.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The Court reaffirmed established disclosure obligations and voter-information jurisprudence from ADR, PUCL, Kisan Shankar Kathore, and related decisions.