The Supreme Court has stated that it will not invalidate each nomination due to any defect made by candidates during filing. Only substantial defects, which could affect the outcome of the elections, will render a nomination invalid. The Court clarified that not every omission, regardless of its seriousness and impact, will automatically be considered substantial.
“It is our firm view that not every defect in a nomination can be characterized in such a way as to render its acceptance inappropriate, and as far as that aspect is concerned, each case will have to include its own specific facts,” Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar said.
The court considered failing to disclose adequate information, contrary to inadequate information, separately.
The court made it clear that significant information that could affect the outcome of the election as the use of ‘inappropriate influence’ on voters should be disclosed by the candidate during nomination.
“The fact that Section 36(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, speaks of not rejecting the nomination by the Returning Officer unless his opinion is that the defect is of a substantial nature, shows that this distinction should always be maintained. There is no absolute order of the nature that every omission, despite its gravity and effect, will amount to a substantial nature of defect, which will have a physical impact on the election result or be equal to ‘inappropriate influence’ so that the election can be considered valid. A corrupt practice,” the court said.
The Supreme Court’s comments came while delivering a decision on a plea that challenged the decision by the Guwahati High Court, which had declared the elections for the Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly invalid.
Action cannot be taken against a candidate for not disclosing trivial information like electricity, rent, water, and telephone charges.
The argument was put forward by the respondent/unsuccessful candidate that the petitioner/appellant had provided incorrect information in their election nomination papers and failed to disclose this in Form 26 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, that they had illegally occupied an MLA cottage allotted by the government in Itanagar. Additionally, it was claimed that Shri Kri did not present ‘no dues certificates’ from the relevant departments regarding payments for rent, electricity, water, and telephone charges.
Rejecting such arguments, the court held that ‘no dues certificates’ and information like rent, electricity, water, and telephone charges are not substantial information of the nature that could affect the election outcome or be equal to ‘inappropriate conduct’ on voters.
“The most important aspect to consider is that there was no actual indebtedness and it is a failure to disclose this by Kariko Kri that he had occupied a government residence during the years 2009 to 2014, cannot be regarded as a defect of a nature that is substantial enough to stain his nomination and make its acceptance inappropriate,” the court said.
Referring to its decision in the case of Kisan Shankar Kathore vs Arun Dattatray Savant and others, and Shambhu Prasad Sharma vs Chirandas Mahant, the court said that outstanding bills such as electricity, water, telephone, etc., should not be considered as every omission of a trivial character which does not physically impact the election result or qualify as corrupt conduct.
