Congress MLA's Election Void For Hiding Criminal Cases: MP High Court

"There is an attempt to suppress, effort to misguide and keep the people in dark. This attempt undeniably and undisputedly is undue influence, and therefore, amounts to corrupt practice," Madhya Pradesh High Court.

In a judgment with far-reaching implications for electoral transparency, the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior on March 9, 2026 set aside the election of a Congress MLA from the Vijaypur Assembly Constituency in the 2024 bye-poll, holding that his deliberate suppression of criminal antecedents in his nomination affidavit — including false declaration that charges had not been framed in two pending criminal cases, and complete non-disclosure of a conviction for illegally cutting 210 trees in a constituency where Adivasis worship trees — constituted corrupt practice under Sections 100(1)(b) and 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Justice G.S. Ahluwalia allowed the election petition filed by petitioner Ram Niwas Rawat, declared the election of respondent no. 1 Mukesh Malhotra as null and void, and declared Rawat elected as MLA from Assembly Constituency 02 Vijaypur, District Sheopur — the candidate who had secured the second highest votes.

Background of the Case

The bye-election arose from an unusual sequence of political events. Ramniwas Rawat had been elected MLA from Vijaypur five times between 1990 and 2018, and had won the seat again in the 2023 General Elections on a Congress ticket. He then resigned and joined the BJP, vacating the seat. In the 2024 bye-poll, Rawat contested on a BJP ticket while Mukesh Malhotra ran on a Congress ticket. Malhotra won, securing 50.66% of votes against Rawat's 46.95% — a margin of approximately 7,000 votes. Rawat then filed the present election petition alleging that Malhotra had suppressed six criminal cases in his Form 26 affidavit, amounting to corrupt practice.

Legal Issues

The petition raised three principal questions: whether the false declaration that charges had not been framed in two disclosed pending cases amounted to corrupt practice; whether the complete non-disclosure of four other cases — including two convictions — independently constituted corrupt practice; and whether, once corrupt practice was established, the Court was required to separately examine whether the result was materially affected.

Court's Observations and Judgment

"Framing of Charge Is Not A Mere Formality — It Is The Application of Judicial Mind to Find Grave Suspicion Against the Accused"

The Court first confronted the returned candidate's most audacious act of concealment: in his Form 26 affidavit, Mukesh Malhotra disclosed two pending criminal cases but specifically declared against each case that charges had not been framed, mentioning "No" and "not applicable" against the relevant columns — when in fact charges had been framed in RCT No. 972/2022 on December 14, 2022 and in RCT No. 1051/2023 on October 17, 2023. Further, for both cases, he described the nature of allegations as merely "verbal altercation" (मुँह वाद) — when the actual charges included causing hurt to victims, abusing women in the name of their mother and sister, and extending life threats.

The Court rejected the defence of bona fide mistake with withering force. In the written statement, Malhotra had claimed the mistakes occurred due to lack of legal awareness and that he "belongs to Sahariya tribe." In evidence, however, he shifted the blame to one J.P. Dhanopia who had allegedly filled up the form — but crucially, Dhanopia was never examined as a witness, and there was no pleading in the written statement that Dhanopia had acted contrary to Malhotra's instructions. The nomination form itself bore Malhotra's declaration that all information was true to his personal knowledge. And most devastatingly for Malhotra's defence: his own affidavit filed in court disclosed his educational qualifications as M.A. (Social Science) and LL.B. — he was a law graduate.

"The respondent no.1/Mukesh Malhotra is a law graduate and therefore, his defence that bona fide mistake had occurred on account of lack of legal knowledge is false even to the knowledge of respondent no.1/Mukesh Malhotra."

Relying on the Supreme Court's rulings in Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah v. State of Gujarat and Ram Prakash Chadha v. State of UP, the Court held that the framing of charges is not a mere procedural step — it involves the application of judicial mind to find whether material collected by the investigating agency raises grave suspicion warranting trial. It is an order of serious concern that substantially affects the liberty of the accused. A specific declaration in the affidavit about the framing of charges exists precisely to inform the electorate that a court of competent jurisdiction has prima facie found sufficient material against the candidate. Falsely declaring "no charges framed" was, therefore, not an omission — it was a deliberate misrepresentation of a legally significant fact.

"Non-disclosure of the fact that charges have been framed cannot be said to be a mere omission — it was with a clear intention to mislead the electorate."

The Court further held that the incorrect summary of allegations — describing what were, in truth, charges of assault and abusing women in the name of their mother and sister as mere "verbal altercation" — was itself an independent act of misleading the electorate. Although the election petition did not contain a specific plea about the incorrect summary of allegations, the Court applied the liberal construction principle from Ram Sarup Gupta v. Bishun Narain Inter College and found that since both parties had gone to trial fully knowing the issues, and since the returned candidate's counsel raised no objection and pleaded no prejudice on account of the absence of a specific plea, the Court was entitled to examine and rule on this aspect.

"It Was Desirable For The Candidate Convicted of Cutting 210 Trees in an Adivasi Constituency Where Trees Are Worshipped to Have Disclosed That Conviction"

Turning to the four cases not disclosed at all, the Court made nuanced distinctions within the ambit of Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act. The provision mandates disclosure only of: pending cases where charges have been framed for offences punishable with imprisonment of two years or more; and convictions attracting sentence of one year or more. Two of the four undisclosed cases were convictions for less than one year, one was an acquittal at the appellate level, and one was an acquittal at trial. The Court held that non-disclosure of these cases did not, by itself, amount to corrupt practice attracting Section 33A.

However, the Court went beyond the strict legal mandate to offer a sharp observation on the forest conviction: Malhotra had been convicted in Forest Crime No. 32773/2014 for illegally cutting 210 freshly-felled trees from a Reserved Forest area along with 25 other persons and had paid a fine of Rs. 7,000/- with default imprisonment of one month. In cross-examination, Malhotra himself admitted that the Vijaypur Assembly Constituency is dominated by Adivasi population, and that Adivasis worship trees as God. He had not challenged his forest conviction in any appeal.

"Looking to the very purpose of disclosure of criminal antecedents and the right of the electorate to know about the background of the candidate, it was desirable on the part of the respondent no.1/Mukesh Malhotra to disclose the said case also."

Similarly, the case under Section 505(2) IPC — alleging that Malhotra had tried to spread hatred against a particular community and demanded their ouster from Karahal area — was also found deserving of disclosure, although the Court held it fell outside the mandatory ambit of Section 33A since he was acquitted. The Court was careful to clarify that the election was being voided not on account of the Group II non-disclosures but on account of the deliberate false declarations in Group I.

"Once Suppression Is Established, The Question Whether The Result Was Materially Affected Does Not Arise"

Drawing from a comprehensive review of Supreme Court jurisprudence — Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms, PUCL v. Union of India, Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India, Krishnamoorthy v. Sivakumar, and the recent Poonam v. Dule Singh — the Court held that a voter's right to make an informed and advised choice is a fundamental right flowing from Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. When a candidate suppresses criminal antecedents — particularly the fact that a court has applied judicial mind and framed charges — it creates an impediment in the free exercise of the electoral right and constitutes undue influence under Section 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act.

The Court then delivered its definitive ruling: once the act of suppression and deliberate false declaration is established, the election tribunal need not separately examine whether the result was materially affected. This finding, drawn from the Supreme Court's categorical ruling in Krishnamoorthy v. Sivakumar, removes one of the most commonly deployed shields against election petitions in cases of criminal non-disclosure.

"It is not necessary for this Court to consider as to whether suppression on the part of the respondent no.1/Mukesh Malhotra has materially affected the election result or not — because it has to be presumed and such question does not arise."

The Court also dealt with a preliminary challenge by the returned candidate who sought dismissal of the election petition on the ground that the copy supplied to him did not bear the seal, name, endorsement and affirmation of the notary. Relying on the Supreme Court Constitution Bench ruling in T. Phungzathang v. Hangkhanlian and the principle of substantial compliance enunciated in T.M. Jacob v. C. Poulose, the Court rejected this application — a ruling later affirmed by the Supreme Court which dismissed the SLP filed against that order on July 22, 2025.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court's judgment serves as a powerful reminder that a candidate's Form 26 affidavit is not a formality but a constitutional instrument for enabling informed electoral choice. A law graduate who invokes tribal identity to plead ignorance, who falsely declares "no charges framed" when charges have already been framed by a court, and who reduces allegations of assaulting women to "verbal altercation," cannot escape the consequences of those conscious misrepresentations. The ruling also marks a notable development in election law: even the non-mandatory disclosure of a forest conviction — cutting trees in a constituency where Adivasis worship them — was held morally incumbent on the candidate, even if legally not compelled.

Date of Decision: March 9, 2026