The Delhi High Court upheld Manish Sisodia’s 2020 election victory, ruling that mere registration of an FIR does not amount to a pending criminal case. Justice Jasmeet Singh clarified that disclosure is required only when charges are framed or a court takes cognizance of the offence.
The Delhi High Court on Friday upheld the 2020 Assembly election victory of Aam Aadmi Party leader Manish Sisodia and made it clear that the mere registration of an FIR does not automatically require disclosure by an election candidate.
The ruling came where the election of Manish Sisodia from the Patparganj constituency was challenged on the ground of alleged non-disclosure of criminal cases.
The Court rejected the challenge and clarified the legal position regarding disclosure of criminal cases under election law. It held that the simple filing or registration of an FIR does not mean that a criminal case is pending for the purpose of disclosure under Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
The Delhi High Court explained that disclosure becomes mandatory only at a specific stage of criminal proceedings. Justice Jasmeet Singh clearly laid down the principle while deciding the matter.
Justice Jasmeet Singh
“observed that an election candidate is required to disclose only when charges are formally framed or the court takes cognizance of the offence.”
ALSO READ: Probe Against Manish Sisodia & Satyendar Jain | President Droupadi Murmu Grants Sanction
The Court further clarified that an FIR by itself is only the starting point of a criminal investigation and does not establish guilt or even formal prosecution. Until a competent court applies its mind and takes cognizance of the alleged offence, or charges are framed against the accused, there is no legal requirement for disclosure under the election law.
The High Court noted that Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act is meant to ensure transparency, but it cannot be interpreted in a manner that forces candidates to disclose every allegation or complaint that has not yet reached the stage of judicial scrutiny.
While upholding Manish Sisodia’s election, the Court emphasised that interference with an electoral mandate can be done only in exceptional circumstances and strictly in accordance with the law. It also held that the election petition suffered from a lack of material facts and did not disclose a legally sustainable cause of action.
ALSO READ: Rs 2,000 Crore Scam: ACB Summons AAP’s Manish Sisodia & Satyendar Jain in Corruption Case
With this ruling, the Delhi High Court has once again reiterated that criminal disclosure norms are triggered only when the legal process reaches a defined stage, and not merely on the basis of an FIR being registered.
The judgment provides important clarity for election candidates across the country and reinforces the principle that allegations alone, without formal court action, cannot be the basis for questioning an election victory.
Case Title:
PRATAP CHANDRA v. MR. MANISH SISODIA & ORS
Click Here to Read More Reports On Manish Sisodia
