SC affirms failure to disclose conviction u/s 138 NI Act invalidates an election; upholds disqualification of MP councillor for suppressing criminal charges.

SC Upholds Disqualification of Councillor for Concealing Conviction

Supreme Court Upholds Disqualification of Councillor for Hiding Conviction in Nomination Form

The petitioner was elected as a councillor from Bhikangaon, Madhya Pradesh. Her election was challenged by Dule Singh on the ground that she hid an old conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, charges of which were active when she filed her nomination form on 9 September 2022. The trial court found that she failed to disclose this conviction in the affidavit required under Rule 24-A of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Palika Nirvachan Niyam, 1994, and held that it was very important and affected the election outcome. Her election was therefore declared null and void.

HC Decided: The revision petition before the High Court was dismissed, with the Court holding that she was rightly disqualified under Section 22(1)(d)(iii) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961, for breaching mandatory disclosure norms. The High Court also noted that she had not entered the witness box to prove that the omission was unintentional or that the election was unaffected. Aggrieved, the petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.

Main Issue: Whether failure to disclose a criminal conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the nomination affidavit constitutes a ground to void an election under Section 22(1)(d)(iii) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961.

SC’s Decision: The SC dismissed the petition and upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts. It ruled that non-disclosure of a subsisting conviction was a clear violation of Rule 24-A of the 1994 Rules and amounted to furnishing false information. The Court observed that such suppression impeded the voter’s right to make an informed choice, which is part of the right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

The Court clarified that the rule mandates disclosure of all convictions without differentiating them on their seriousness. Referring to Association for Democratic Reforms (2002), Krishnamoorthy v. Shivakumar (2015), and Kisan Shankar Kathore (2014), the Court reiterated that suppression of criminal proceedings vitiates the election process.

It also held that subsequent acquittal after the election does not cure the defect existing at the time of nomination.