The Supreme Court dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by a Councillor who was unseated for failing to disclose her prior conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, while contesting municipal elections in Bhikangaon, Madhya Pradesh.
A Bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar held that non-disclosure of a criminal conviction in the affidavit mandated under Rule 24-A of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Palika Nirvachan Niyam, 1994, amounted to furnishing false information, rendering the acceptance of her nomination improper and her election void under Section 22(1)(d)(iii) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961.
Rejecting the plea that her conviction for a cheque bounce offence was minor and not one involving moral turpitude, the Court ruled that the obligation to disclose any conviction regardless of its nature was absolute. Such disclosure, it observed, enables voters to make informed choices, which is intrinsic to the right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
Invoking the Constitution Bench ruling in Pritam Singh v. State (1950 INSC 9), the Court further held that its discretionary power under Article 136 could not be exercised in this case, as no exceptional or grave injustice was shown. The Bench noted that the petitioner’s affidavit contained incorrect and false statements, her subsequent acquittal occurred after the election, and she failed to enter the witness box to explain the omission. In any event, she later contested the by-election caused by her removal and lost.
Accordingly, finding no special or exceptional circumstances warranting interference, the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition.
