Supreme Court Upholds Karikho Kri's Election in Arunachal Pradesh: Non-Disclosure of Assets Not Grounds for Invalidating Election. Supreme Court reverses High Court ruling, finds no substantial defect or corrupt practice in Karikho Kri's election despite asset non-disclosures.

Case Note & Summary

The Supreme Court of India set aside a High Court ruling that had declared the election of Karikho Kri void due to non-disclosure of certain assets and liabilities. The court held that the alleged non-disclosures, such as vehicles registered in the names of Kri's family members, did not amount to substantial defects or corrupt practices under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Consequently, the court upheld Kri's election to the Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly, dismissing the election petition filed by rival candidate Nuney Tayang.

In 2019, Karikho Kri won the election for the 44 Tezu (ST) Assembly Constituency in Arunachal Pradesh. Following the election, rival candidate Nuney Tayang filed a petition challenging Kri's election on the grounds of improper asset disclosures and non-compliance with election rules.

The Itanagar Bench of the High Court declared Kri's election void, citing non-disclosure of vehicles registered under his wife and son’s names and non-submission of a "No Dues Certificate" for government accommodations previously occupied by Kri.

Karikho Kri appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the non-disclosures were either inconsequential or related to assets no longer in possession of his family.

The Supreme Court found that the vehicles in question had been sold or gifted before the election and therefore were not subject to disclosure. The court also held that Kri’s failure to submit a "No Dues Certificate" did not constitute a substantial defect or corrupt practice that could invalidate the election.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and upheld Karikho Kri's election. The court emphasized that not every defect in nomination papers constitutes a substantial defect, and non-disclosure must materially affect the election outcome to be grounds for invalidation.