"Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Reasonable Doubt Arising from Sole Testimony in Absence of Corroboration, Power Cut Compounded Identification Difficulties: Supreme Court Acquits Appellants in Murder Case    |     ED Can Investigate Without FIRs: PH High Court Affirms PMLA’s Broad Powers    |     Accident Claim | Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Vicariously Attributed to Passengers: Supreme Court    |     Default Bail | Indefeasible Right to Bail Prevails: Allahabad High Court Faults Special Judge for Delayed Extension of Investigation    |     “Habitual Offenders Cannot Satisfy Bail Conditions Under NDPS Act”: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to Accused with Extensive Criminal Record    |     Delhi High Court Denies Substitution for Son Due to 'Gross Unexplained Delay' of Over Six Years in Trademark Suit    |     Section 4B of the Tenancy Act Cannot Override Land Exemptions for Public Development: Bombay High Court    |     Suspicion, However High, Is Not a Substitute for Proof: Calcutta High Court Orders Reinstatement of Coast Guard Officer Dismissed on Suspicion of Forgery    |     Age Not Conclusively Proven, Prosecutrix Found to be a Consenting Party: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused in POCSO Case    |     'Company's Absence in Prosecution Renders Case Void': Himachal High Court Quashes Complaint Against Pharma Directors    |     Preventive Detention Cannot Sacrifice Personal Liberty on Mere Allegations: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention of Local Journalist    |     J.J. Act | Accused's Age at Offense Critical - Juvenility Must Be Addressed: Kerala High Court Directs Special Court to Reframe Charges in POCSO Case    |     Foreign Laws Must Be Proved Like Facts: Delhi HC Grants Bail in Cryptocurrency Money Laundering Case    |    

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

 

Similar News