The Supreme Court ruled that minor lapses in disclosing income or assets should not automatically void election results unless they significantly impact the outcome. The judgment came while dismissing an appeal against Telangana MLA Kova Laxmi.
New Delhi: On Aug 18, the Supreme Court of India has clarified that elections should not be struck down in a hurry just because a winning candidate failed to mention certain details about income or assets in their affidavit.
The Court said such mistakes or omissions will only matter if they are serious enough to affect the election result.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh dismissed an appeal challenging the October 2024 order of the Telangana High Court. The High Court had earlier rejected an election petition linked to the 2023 Telangana legislative assembly polls.
The petition was filed against returned candidate Kova Laxmi, alleging that she failed to disclose her income for four out of the last five financial years in the Form 26 affidavit submitted to the Election Commission.
The top court examined whether such non-disclosure would amount to corrupt practice under election law.
The bench said:
“In the light of the legal position exposited, on examination of the facts in the peculiar background obtaining in the case, we hold that the non-disclosure of income in the income tax return for four financial years by respondent 1 (returned candidate), is not a defect of substantial character.”
It held that this kind of non-disclosure was not substantial enough to be treated as corrupt practice. Accordingly, the Court agreed with the High Court’s finding that Kova Laxmi had not committed any corrupt practice.
The judges stressed that each case must be examined on its own facts to see whether the non-disclosure of assets is of a significant nature.
The bench observed:
“Merely because a returned candidate has not disclosed certain information related to the assets, courts should not rush to invalidate the election by adopting a highly pedantic and fastidious approach, unless it is shown that such concealment or non-disclosure was of such magnitude and substantial nature that it could have influenced the election result.”
In this case, the Court pointed out that the concealment was not serious enough to affect the outcome. The order stated that it was not demonstrated that the missing information about assets or income had a substantial impact on the election result.
ALSO READ: Election Commission of India Invites MP Mahua Moitra After Supreme Court Order
The bench also recalled an earlier verdict of the Supreme Court where non-disclosure of assets was treated as corrupt practice. However, it clarified the distinction in the present matter:
“But the non-disclosure of income as per income tax return in the present case, as discussed above, is not of a substantial nature to be considered a corrupt practice.”
To guide future cases, the Court laid down the principle:
“The true test would be whether the non-disclosure of information about assets in any case is of consequential or inconsequential import, finding of which will be the basis for declaring the election valid or void as the case may be.”
The bench explained that the purpose of requiring candidates to disclose their details was to ensure transparency and protect the electoral process.
The judges said judicial intervention in such election disputes was driven by the aim of cleansing the system and informing voters about candidates’ criminal and financial backgrounds.
The verdict highlighted that while disclosures are very important, courts must not take a rigid view in cases involving minor lapses. As the order stated:
“The disclosure requirement as far as assets and educational qualification was concerned, should not be unreasonably stretched to invalidate an otherwise validly declared election over minor technical non-compliances of non-substantial character and nullify people’s mandate.”
Case Title:
Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v Thiru C V Shanmugam and Ors
Read Judgement:
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Disenfranchisement
