Supreme Court stated that candidates contesting panchayat elections must truthfully disclose information about any pending criminal cases against them. The Court emphasised that non-disclosure amounts to corrupt practice and can lead to annulment of election results.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has upheld a ruling from the Himachal Pradesh High Court, which mandates that candidates contesting panchayat elections disclose any pending legal cases against them.
Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh made this observation while affirming the high court’s decision to dismiss Basant Lal, the ‘pradhan‘ (head) of the Pangna village panchayat in Mandi district.
Also Read: ‘Punjab Panchayat Polls Case’: Supreme Court Seeks State’s & Election Commission Response
On October 16, 2024, the high court determined that Lal’s failure to disclose critical information constituted “corrupt practice” under the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, providing a valid basis for declaring his election null and void.
The Supreme Court stated,
“We fail to find any merit as far as the petitioner’s challenge to the impugned order(s) and judgment(s) of the high court are concerned. We say so for the reason that the regulations framed by the State Election Commission have rightly been held by the high court to be a piece of subordinate legislation and, thus, the candidates contesting the panchayat election were obligated to comply with the provisions of the same.”
The bench added that the misconduct attributed to Lal did not require reference to any specific provision of the act, rules, or regulations.
The bench noted,
“It is a case where he deliberately filed a false affidavit/undertaking concealing the factum of pendency of criminal case against him. The concealment of that material fact per se was a valid ground to annul his election,”
Lal pointed out that on February 2, 2025, he was disqualified from contesting elections for six years due to his prior failure to disclose a criminal case. However, the court acknowledged that he had since been acquitted of that charge.
Regarding the six-year disqualification, the bench remarked that the punishment appeared harsh given his acquittal.
It stated,
“Turning lastly to the order dated February 2, 2025, by way of which the petitioner has been precluded from contesting elections for the next six years, we do not want to express any opinion on this order’s merits as it is a subsequent event which was not subject matter of the challenge before the high court,”
The Supreme Court indicated that, considering Lal’s acquittal, the six-year ban seemed “prima facie harsh and disproportionate punishment to the nature of allegations attributed to him.”
The bench clarified,
“We hasten to clarify that these are only prima facie observations at this stage. The petitioner, if so advised, may challenge that order before the high court in the appropriate proceedings.”
It added that since no final opinion had been expressed on the merits of that order, it was up to the high court to determine the appropriate course of action.
To prevent any irreversible hardship, the court stayed the operation of the February 2 order, allowing the petitioner to contest the upcoming pradhan election of the gram panchayat.
The bench stated in its order dated April 17,
“This stay shall operate for a period of eight weeks from today to enable the petitioner to approach the high court meanwhile by way of appropriate proceedings,”
Lal had approached the Supreme Court after being dissatisfied with a November 7, 2024, judgment from a division bench of the high court, which upheld the single-judge bench’s decision regarding his disqualification.
Lal was initially declared pradhan on January 17, 2021. Jitender Mahajan, who finished third in the elections, contested Lal’s selection through an election petition filed with the sub-divisional authorized officer, arguing that Lal had failed to disclose a pending criminal case against him.
The sub-divisional magistrate-cum-authorized officer found that a criminal case against Lal was pending trial, with a potential punishment of up to two years, and subsequently declared his election null and void.
Following this decision, Lal appealed to the deputy commissioner-cum-appellant authority, which dismissed his appeal on May 1, 2023, prompting him to approach the high court.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
