Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Arjunadada Dashrath Bhuse, filed an election petition under Section 80 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, challenging the election of the respondent, Dadaji Dagadu Bhuse, from the Malegaon (Outer) Assembly Constituency in the 2009 Maharashtra Legislative Assembly elections. The petitioner alleged that the respondent's nomination was improperly accepted due to non-compliance with mandatory disclosure requirements and other defects, rendering the election void. The respondent, a returned candidate, had filed an affidavit as part of his nomination paper disclosing 21 pending criminal cases but failed to provide a description of the offences, listing only the case numbers, police stations, and IPC sections. The petitioner contended that this violated Section 33A of the RPA and the Election Commission order dated 27 March 2003, which required a full description, and that such non-compliance was a defect of substantial character warranting rejection of the nomination under Section 36(2)(b). Additionally, the petitioner raised issues regarding the respondent's oath under Article 173(a) of the Constitution, an alleged contradictory claim about being sponsored or independent, and non-disclosure of a pending fine to the Government of Maharashtra. The respondent argued that the affidavit complied with the rules as it was not required to include the district or state of the offence, that he had taken the oath under the correct article, and that he had paid the fine before filing his nomination. The court framed six issues and, with the consent of counsel, decided them primarily on admitted documents, except for limited oral evidence on the payment of dues. The court found that the failure to describe the offences was indeed a substantial defect, rendering the nomination liable for rejection. It held that the respondent was disqualified, the nomination was defective, and the statutory information was incomplete. The issues regarding the oath and defaulter status were decided in favour of the respondent. Consequently, the court declared the election void under Section 100(1)(d) of the RPA and set it aside. The judgment emphasised the importance of full disclosure of criminal antecedents to enable informed choice by the electorate, in line with the Supreme Court's direction in Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Nomination Paper - Disclosure of Criminal Antecedents - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Sections 33A, 36(2)(b), 100(1)(d)(i),(iv); Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, Rule 4A; Election Commission Order dated 27 March 2003 - The candidate must provide a description of the offence in the affidavit; merely stating the case number, police station, and IPC section is insufficient. Non-compliance constitutes a defect of substantial character requiring rejection of the nomination. Since the respondent failed to describe the 21 criminal cases pending against him, his nomination was improperly accepted, and his subsequent election is void. Held that the election is set aside. (Paras 1-5, 14, 17) B) Election Law - Oath - Article 173(a) of Constitution - The respondent took oath in the prescribed form and before an authorised officer. The challenge to the oath under Article 84(a) was without merit. Held that there was compliance with constitutional requirement. (Paras 1, 10, 14) C) Election Law - Default of Government Dues - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Section 36(2)(b) - The respondent had paid the fine levied in a departmental inquiry before filing his nomination. Therefore, he was not a defaulter and was not required to disclose this in his affidavit. Held that no suppression occurred and the nomination was not defective on this ground. (Paras 7, 12, 14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent's nomination was improperly accepted due to non-disclosure of description of criminal offences in the affidavit as required under Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and whether such improper acceptance rendered his election void; Whether the respondent complied with Article 173(a) of the Constitution; Whether the respondent was a defaulter to the Government and suppressed material facts.
Final Decision
The election of the respondent as a member of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from Malegaon (Outer) Assembly Constituency in the 2009 general elections is declared void on the ground of improper acceptance of nomination due to non-disclosure of description of criminal offences as required under Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The petition is allowed.
Law Points
- Improper acceptance of nomination
- mandatory disclosure of criminal antecedents
- description of offence
- defect of substantial character
- rejection of nomination under Section 36(2)(b)
- election void under Section 100(1)(d)
