The Supreme Court disqualified a Councillor for failing to disclose a prior conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The ruling reinforces that non-disclosure of criminal antecedents can void an election if it affects voters’ informed choice.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India, in the landmark case Poonam v Dule Singh, clarified the legal implications of failing to disclose criminal antecedents during the nomination process for elections. The judgment emphasized that non-disclosure of a criminal conviction can render an election void if it affects the free and informed choice of voters, even if the offence is not of a serious nature.
Background of the Case
Poonam was elected as a Councillor from Ward No. 5 at the Nagar Parishad, Bhikangaon, in Madhya Pradesh. However, her election was challenged because she had failed to disclose a prior conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in her nomination affidavit, as mandated by Rule 24-A of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Palika Nirvachan Niyam, 1994.
Her conviction, dated 07.08.2018, carried a sentence of one year imprisonment and compensation. Poonam contended that her conviction was later set aside on appeal, and therefore, she should not be disqualified.
Legal Provisions
Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (Section 22(1)(d)): Allows courts to declare an election void if the result is materially affected by improper acceptance of nomination or non-compliance with the Act or rules.
Rule 24-A of the MP Nagar Palika Nirvachan Niyam, 1994: Requires candidates to declare criminal antecedents, assets, liabilities, and educational qualifications. Failure to provide accurate information can lead to rejection of the nomination.
ALSO READ: Lok Sabha Elections 2024 | SC Dismisses Appeal on Rejection of Nomination Papers
Supreme Court’s Findings
Mandatory Disclosure: The Court highlighted that all candidates must disclose prior convictions irrespective of the severity of the offence. Poonam’s failure to disclose her conviction meant her nomination form was improperly accepted.
Voter Right to Information: Drawing on Union of India vs. Association for Democratic Reforms, the Court emphasized that voters have the right to material information about candidates, including criminal antecedents, to make an informed choice.
Effect on Election Result: The Court held that non-disclosure of criminal convictions inherently affects the free exercise of the electoral right, and therefore, a material impact on the election need not be separately proved.
Subsequent Acquittal Irrelevant: The Court ruled that eligibility must be determined at the time of nomination, so a conviction overturned after filing the nomination does not absolve a candidate from disclosing it.
Discretion under Article 136: The Court refused to exercise its discretion to condone the non-disclosure, noting no exceptional circumstances existed to warrant overturning the concurrent findings of the lower courts.
The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, upholding the trial and High Court decisions that Poonam’s election was void due to suppression of material information in her affidavit. The Court reinforced that:
- Transparency in disclosure is a fundamental requirement of free and fair elections.
- Non-disclosure of criminal antecedents, regardless of moral turpitude or severity, renders the election void if the candidate’s nomination is improperly accepted.
Rule 24-A of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Palika Nirvachan Niyam, 1994
Rule 24-A of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Palika Nirvachan Niyam, 1994 requires all election candidates to submit an affidavit disclosing:
- Criminal cases: Pending charges and past convictions.
- Assets and liabilities: Movable and immovable property, debts to banks or government.
- Educational qualifications.
The affidavit must be enclosed with the nomination paper, displayed publicly by the Returning Officer, and is subject to challenge by other candidates or voters. Non-compliance can lead to rejection of the nomination.
Purpose: Ensures transparency, accountability, and informed voting in local elections.
Case Title:
POONAM vs. DULE SINGH & ORS.
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 12000 OF 2025
READ JUDGMENT
