Karnataka High Court Hears Election Petition Challenging Election of Returned Candidate from 140-Bagepalli Assembly Constituency on Grounds of Non-disclosure of Assets. Petition Filed Under Sections 80, 81, 100, 101 and 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, Alleges Suppression of Material Information in Nomination Affidavit.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The election petition was filed by Sri. C. Muniraju, an unsuccessful candidate of the Bharatiya Janata Party, challenging the election of Sri. S.N. Subbareddy, the returned candidate of the Indian National Congress, from 140-Bagepalli Assembly Constituency in the 16th Karnataka Legislative Assembly elections held on 10.05.2023. The petitioner alleged that the respondent failed to disclose up-to-date details of assets and liabilities belonging to himself, his wife, and dependent daughter in the Form 26 affidavit filed with his nomination on 20.04.2023. Specific non-disclosures and false information were enumerated, including bank account balances, business interests, loans advanced, agricultural and non-agricultural properties, GST dues, offshore assets, and income tax returns. The petitioner contended that such non-disclosure and false information amounted to corrupt practice under Section 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and that the Returning Officer ought not to have accepted the nomination, thereby materially affecting the election result. The petitioner sought to set aside the election and to be declared elected in place of the respondent. In response, the respondent filed a written statement denying all allegations, asserting that the Form 26 affidavit requirements are not statutory and non-disclosure does not constitute a ground for setting aside an election under Section 100 of the Act. The respondent also argued that the petition lacked concise material facts and particulars as required under Section 83, and that the alleged non-disclosures were either inadvertent, already disclosed in aggregate, or not required to be disclosed. The matter was heard and reserved for orders on 05.02.2026, and the court pronounced the order on 16.02.2026, though the operative portion and reasoning are not included in the provided text.

Issue of Consideration

ELECTION PETITION No.4 OF 2023

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (KAR) (02) 67

Election Petition No.4 of 2023

2026-02-16

Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.G.S. Kamal

For Petitioner: Smt. Nalina Mayegowda (Senior Advocate) for Sri. Manjunatha Hiral; For Respondent No.1: Sri. Jayakumar S. Patil (Senior Advocate) for Sri. D.P. Mahesh

Sri. C Muniraju

Sri. S N Subbareddy alias Chinnakayalapalli and others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Election Petition challenging election of returned candidate under Representation of the People Act, 1951

Remedy Sought

Petitioner seeks to set aside election of Respondent No.1 and declare himself elected

Filing Reason

Alleged non-disclosure and false information in Form 26 affidavit filed with nomination, amounting to corrupt practice

Issues

Whether the election of Respondent No.1 is liable to be set aside on the ground of corrupt practice under Section 123(2) and/or Section 123(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, due to alleged non-disclosure and false information in Form 26 affidavit? Whether the Returning Officer improperly accepted the nomination of Respondent No.1? Whether the petitioner is entitled to be declared elected under Section 101 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner: Respondent No.1 failed to disclose up-to-date bank balances, business details, loans advanced, agricultural and non-agricultural properties, GST dues, offshore assets, and inaccurately reported income tax returns; such non-disclosure and false information constitute corrupt practice, materially affected the election, and the nomination should have been rejected. Respondent No.1: Form 26 disclosure requirements are not statutory and non-disclosure does not constitute corrupt practice or a ground for setting aside an election under Section 100; the petition lacks concise material facts and particulars required under Section 83; the alleged non-disclosures were either inadvertent, aggregated, or not required.

Procedural History

Election Petition presented under Sections 80, 81, 100, 101 r/w Section 123 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, by Sri. C. Muniraju along with counsels before the Registrar (Judicial) on 24.06.2023, challenging the election of Respondent Sri. S.N. Subbareddy from 140-Bagepalli Assembly Constituency. Heard and reserved for orders on 05.02.2026. Order pronounced on 16.02.2026.

Acts & Sections

  • Representation of the People Act, 1951: 33, 33A, 80, 81, 83, 100, 101, 123
  • Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017: 47
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Pre-emption Case Under Rajasthan Pre-emption Act, 1966 — Right of Pre-emption Not Available Where Vendee Has Equal or Inferior Right. Court Holds That Under Section 5(1)(c) of the Act, a Claimant Must Have a Superior ...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka hears multiple writ petitions against reservation of wards for municipal elections. Court examines validity of notifications under constitutional provisions for delimitation and reservation of seats in urban local bodies.