In a writ petition filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court against an order dated 29-07-2024, passed by respondent 8 (Commission), whereby an election petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Vishal Mishra quashed the impugned order as well as the election results, while directing the authorities to re-notify the elections.
The petitioner contended that the State Government notified panchayat elections in 2022, along with the Janpad Sadashya election for the Janpad Panchayat Rampur Naikin, District Sidhi, inviting nomination forms. The petitioner, along with respondents 1 to 6, submitted their nomination forms for the Janpad Sadashya election. On 14-07-2022, the election results were announced, and respondent 1 was selected as the candidate with the highest number of votes, while the petitioner received the second-highest number of votes.
The petitioner filed an application seeking a copy of respondent 1’s nomination forms and affidavit, which was supplied to him. He also sought the criminal history of respondent 1, which was provided to him. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an election petition before the Commission under Section 122 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, seeking a declaration that the election result be declared void on the ground that respondent 1 had furnished false information regarding criminal cases as well as his education in his nomination form and affidavit.
It was asserted that despite observing that respondent 1 had furnished wrong information in his nomination form, the Commission had erroneously rejected the election petition on the grounds that the furnishing of wrong information would not come under the purview of corrupt practice.
By an order dated 05-03-2025, this Court had requested Advocate Siddharth Seth to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae and explain whether information regarding criminal cases is required to be provided for pending cases or even cases that have been disposed of. The amicus curiae submitted that a contesting candidate must furnish details of all cases registered against him, irrespective of whether the criminal cases are pending or decided in terms of Rule 31-A (2) of the M.P. Panchayat (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995.
The Court stated that the sole question in the matter was whether a candidate contesting the panchayat elections is required to furnish a declaration regarding criminal cases registered against him. It was stated that the nomination form of respondent 1 should have been rejected at the time of scrutiny for furnishing incorrect information in the affidavit. After perusing respondent 1’s high school marksheet, the Court noted that even though he had failed, he incorrectly mentioned that he had passed.
The Court referred to the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995, and the 1995 Rules, as well as various decisions of the Supreme Court, to state that the result of an election can be materially affected by improper acceptance of any nomination form. It was stated that furnishing of incorrect information in the nomination paper would amount to a corrupt practice.
Referring to Mehboob Khan v. Lallu Bhai & Ors. 2008 (4) MPLJ 198, the Court stated that the nomination paper of respondent 1 was liable to be rejected for non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Rule 31-A and thus quashed the impugned order for being unsustainable. The election results were also quashed, and the authorities were directed to renotify the election.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – Mr. Swatantra Pandey
For Respondents – Mr. Sanjay K. Agrawal (Sr. Adv), Mr. Aakash Sharma, Mr. A.S. Baghel (GA)
Amicus Curiae – Mr. Siddharth Seth
