District Judiciary Retirement Age | Supreme Court Directs Enhancement To 62 Years To Arrest Attrition Of Judicial Talent Slogans Inciting Armed Rebellion Or Challenging Sovereignty Cannot Be Equated With Religious Expressions: Allahabad High Court Denies Bail Revisional Authority Under AP ROR Act Has Jurisdiction To Direct Inquiry Into Illegal Transfers Of Assigned Land: Andhra Pradesh High Court Indian Law Does Not Recognise 'Joint Parenting' As A Statutory Concept; Child Welfare Remains Paramount: Bombay High Court Order 26 Rule 9 CPC | Court Must Appoint Survey-Knowing Commissioner In Suits Alleging Physical Encroachment And Boundary Disputes: Calcutta High Court Section 33-C(2) ID Act | Labour Court Has Jurisdiction To Recover Consequential Benefits Arising From CAT Orders: Delhi High Court Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC | Procedural Law Is Meant For Advancement Of Justice; Technicalities Should Not Scuttle Opportunity To Lead Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court High Court Can Condition Condonation Of Delay In Land Acquisition Appeals Upon Waiver Of Interest For Delayed Period: Bombay High Court Employees Compensation Act | Insurance Company Not Liable To Indemnify Penalty Imposed On Employer Under Section 4-A(3)(b): Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees’ Compensation Act | Failure To Frame Issue On Employer-Employee Relationship Vitiates Commissioner’s Award: Kerala High Court Default Bail Under Section 187 BNSS | Period Of Investigation Depends On Substance Of Allegations In FIR, Not Merely Mentioned Sections: Madhya Pradesh High Court SARFAESI Act | Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Must Be Challenged Under Section 17 Before DRT, Not Via Writ Petition: Kerala High Court

Disclosure of Assets and Government Dues Not of Substantial Nature to Invalidate Election: Supreme Court Upholds Election of Karikho Kri

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India reversed the decision of the High Court, which had declared the election of Karikho Kri void, asserting that the disclosures made by him were substantial and the non-disclosures did not materially affect the election.

The Supreme Court held that non-disclosure of certain assets, specifically three vehicles, and failure to submit a ‘No Dues Certificate’ related to government accommodation, were not defects of substantial nature to impact the validity of Karikho Kri’s election. Furthermore, the partial non-disclosure of municipal/property taxes was not considered pressing.

Karikho Kri’s election was challenged on grounds of non-disclosure of assets and dues under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The High Court declared his election void, but the Supreme Court took a different view.

Non-Disclosure of Assets: The Court noted that the vehicles in question were either sold or gifted before the nomination. This ownership change, despite being unregistered, did not equate to current ownership or possession by Kri’s family members. Hence, this non-disclosure was not deemed significant enough to influence the election outcome.

‘No Dues Certificate’ and Government Accommodation: The Court found that Kri’s failure to disclose previous occupancy of government accommodation and submit a ‘No Dues Certificate’ did not constitute a defect of a substantial nature as there were no outstanding dues.

Disclosure of Municipal/Property Taxes: The Court considered the partial non-disclosure of taxes as not of substantial nature affecting the election.

Upholding Election of Karikho Kri: The Court allowed the appeal filed by Kri, upholding his election and setting aside the judgment of the High Court. The grounds under Sections 100(1)(b), 100(1)(d)(i), and 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, were not established to invalidate his election.

Decision: The Supreme Court upheld the election of Karikho Kri, allowing Civil Appeal No. 4615 of 2023 and dismissing Civil Appeal No. 4716 of 2023 filed by Nuney Tayang.

Date of Decision: April 9, 2024

KARIKHO KRI vs. NUNEY TAYANG AND ANOTHER

 

Latest Legal News