The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently dismissed an election petition challenging Union Aviation Minister Jyotiraditya Scindia’s 2020 Rajya Sabha nomination. The petition alleged that Scindia concealed information about a criminal case filed against him. However, the court ruled that the mere registration of an FIR does not constitute a pending criminal case for disclosure in nomination papers.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
On February 19, the Madhya Pradesh High Court made a significant ruling, dismissing an election petition challenging the nomination of Union Aviation Minister Jyotiraditya Scindia to the Rajya Sabha in 2020 [Govind Singh v Jyotiraditya Scindia & Ors]. The plea, filed by former Minister and Congress leader Govind Singh, alleged that Scindia had concealed information about a criminal case during the submission of his nomination papers in 2020.
Singh’s main point was that Scindia, a candidate for the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) at the time, was accused of suppressing information regarding a criminal case filed against him. The case, which dates back to 2018 and involved allegations of forgery and related offenses, implicated Kamal Nath, Digvijay Singh, and Scindia. The legal complaint was lodged at the Shyamala Hills police station in Bhopal.
ALSO READ: MP HC asks for Lowering the Age of Consent to 16, Citing Injustice to Boys”
However, Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke, presiding over the case, highlighted a crucial legal distinction. The mere registration of a First Information Report (FIR) cannot be considered a pending criminal case for the purpose of disclosures in nomination papers.
The Court emphasized-
“Mere registration of FIR vide crime number 176/2018 against Respondent No.1 (Scindia)…doesn’t come within the purview of pendency of a criminal case.”
The Court delved into the specifics, stating that information regarding the registration of the FIR was not required to be furnished in Form-26 as per Rule 4A of Rules of 1961. The judgment clarified-
“Therefore, the information regarding the registration of the FIR was not required to be furnished in Form-26 postulated under Rule 4A of Rules of 1961.”
ALSO READ: Delhi HC Rules: Special MP/MLA Courts Authorized to Try Offenses Involving Former Legislators
Govind Singh’s argument rested on Scindia’s acknowledgment of the FIR publicly. However, the High Court pointed out that the trial court had not taken cognizance of this criminal case at the time of filing the nomination papers. The Court clarified that a directive to register an FIR does not signify the trial court’s cognizance but rather indicates the initiation of an investigation or the issuance of a search warrant for investigative purposes.
This emphasized by the Court, lies in the fact that only when a trial court takes cognizance of a criminal case does it become necessary to disclose the same in nomination papers. The judgment stated-
“Therefore, it cannot be said that he had taken cognizance of the offence, and once the cognizance of the matter has not been taken by it, it cannot be said that there was any pending criminal case against Respondent No.1 (Scindia).”
The Court held that non-disclosure of the FIR in the nomination Form-26 does not amount to corrupt practice under Section 123 of the Representation of People Act, 1951. The specific language used in the judgment emphasized-
“Non-disclosure of the factum of registration of F.I.R in the nomination Form-26 expressly and impliedly cannot be said to amount corrupt practice as provided under Section 123 of the act of 1951 (Representation of People Act).”
The Madhya Pradesh High Court rejected the election petition, offering legal clarification on the differentiation between filing a First Information Report (FIR) and the ongoing status of a criminal case, particularly in the context of political candidacy.
