MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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