Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Satish Ukey, a practicing advocate, filed a criminal complaint against the first respondent, Devendra Gangadharrao Fadnavis, the then Chief Minister of Maharashtra, alleging an offence under Section 125-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The complaint claimed that in the affidavit in Form-26 accompanying his nomination papers, the first respondent failed to disclose two criminal cases where cognizance had been taken: Summary Case No.231 of 1996 under Section 500 IPC and Regular Criminal Case No.343 of 2003 under Sections 468, 471, 218, 467, 420 and 34 IPC. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur dismissed the complaint on 7th September 2015. On revision, the Sessions Judge remanded the matter for de novo consideration. The first respondent then approached the High Court, which set aside the Sessions Judge's order and dismissed the complaint on 3rd May 2018. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined the provisions of Sections 33-A and 125-A of the 1951 Act, Rule 4A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, and Form-26. The Court noted that Section 33-A, inserted after the Association for Democratic Reforms judgment, requires a candidate to disclose only pending cases where a charge has been framed, not where cognizance has been taken. Section 125-A penalizes furnishing false information or concealing information required to be furnished under Section 33-A. The Court held that since the alleged non-disclosure pertained to cases where only cognizance was taken, it was not information required under Section 33-A, and therefore no offence under Section 125-A was made out. The Court also rejected the argument that Rule 4A and Form-26 could expand the scope of the offence, as they cannot override the statutory provision. The Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's order.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Election Offences - Section 125-A Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Non-disclosure of cognizance-taken cases - The appellant alleged that the first respondent failed to disclose two cases where cognizance was taken, in his election affidavit. The Supreme Court held that Section 125-A penalizes only the furnishing of false information or concealment of information required to be furnished under Section 33-A. Section 33-A(1)(i) requires disclosure only of pending cases where a charge has been framed, not where cognizance has been taken. Therefore, non-disclosure of cognizance-taken cases does not attract Section 125-A. The Court also held that Rule 4A of the 1961 Rules and Form-26 cannot expand the scope of the offence beyond the statutory requirement. (Paras 5-14) B) Constitutional Law - Right to Information - Article 19(1)(a) - Voters' right to know - The Court acknowledged the voters' right to know the antecedents of candidates as held in Association for Democratic Reforms and PUCL cases. However, it held that the specific statutory scheme under Sections 33-A and 125-A of the 1951 Act, which requires disclosure only of charge-framed cases, must prevail. The Court noted that Parliament deliberately omitted cognizance-taken cases from Section 33-A, and the remedy for any deficiency lies with the legislature, not the courts. (Paras 6-10) C) Criminal Procedure - Complaint Dismissal - Section 125-A - The High Court's order dismissing the complaint was upheld. The Supreme Court found that the complaint did not disclose any offence under Section 125-A as the alleged non-disclosure was not of information required to be furnished under Section 33-A. The appeal was dismissed. (Paras 15-16)
Issue of Consideration
Whether non-disclosure of cases where cognizance has been taken but charge has not been framed in the affidavit in Form-26 constitutes an offence under Section 125-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's order dismissing the complaint. The Court held that the alleged non-disclosure did not constitute an offence under Section 125-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Law Points
- Section 125-A of the Representation of the People Act
- 1951 creates an offence only for furnishing false information or concealing information required to be furnished under Section 33-A
- which mandates disclosure only of cases where charge has been framed
- not where cognizance has been taken
- Rule 4A of the Conduct of Election Rules
- 1961 read with Form-26 cannot expand the scope of Section 125-A beyond what is required by Section 33-A
- the right to information under Article 19(1)(a) as interpreted in Association for Democratic Reforms and PUCL cases does not override the specific statutory scheme.
