TIP Essential When Identity Based On Belated 'Alias' Claims; Conviction Can't Rest On Improved Witness Testimonies: Supreme Court Conviction Based On Flawed Identification Cannot Be Sustained In Law: Supreme Court Acquits Sri Lankan National In UAPA Case Penalty For Misdeclaration Of Power Capacity Is Strict Liability; No Need To Prove Intent Or 'Gaming': Supreme Court Authority To Appoint Includes Power To Dismiss; Visitor Can Terminate 'First Registrar' Under Transitional Provisions: Supreme Court State Cannot Use Delay Or Contractual Clauses To Deny Statutory Compensation For Land Acquisition: Supreme Court State As Model Employer Cannot Deny Regularization Benefits To Workers Due To Its Own Clerical Lapses: Supreme Court Section 106 Evidence Act | Husband’s Failure To Explain Wife’s Unnatural Death In Matrimonial Home Completes Chain Of Circumstances: Supreme Court Tender Condition For Out-Of-State Bidders To Submit EMD Via Demand Draft Not Mandatory If Clause Uses 'May': Supreme Court Affidavit Is Not 'Evidence' Under Section 3 Of Evidence Act Unless Court Orders Its Use Under Order XIX CPC: Supreme Court Exclusion Of Natural Heirs Not A 'Suspicious Circumstance' To Invalidate Will If Testator Provides Reason: Supreme Court 18-Year-Old Rendered 100% Disabled Entitled To Compensation For Loss Of Marriage Prospects And Dignity: Punjab & Haryana HC Right To Life Under Article 21 Prioritizes Preservation Of Mother's Life Over Reproductive Autonomy If Termination Poses Fatal Risk: J&K High Court Director’s Involvement In Company Affairs A Disputed Fact; High Court Cannot Conduct ‘Mini-Trial’ To Quash Section 138 NI Act Complaint: Punjab & Haryana HC Abuse Of Process: Bombay High Court Quashes FIRs Against Lawyer & Ex-Police Chief Sanjay Pandey; Says Complaints Motivated By Vengeance Magistrate Not Bound To Order FIR In Every Case Under Section 175(3) BNSS If Complainant Possesses All Evidence: Allahabad High Court High Court Can Initiate Suo Motu Inquiry Against Judicial Officers Based On Information; Sworn Affidavit Not Mandatory: Gujarat High Court Lack Of Videography, Independent Witnesses During Contraband Seizure Relevant Factors For Granting Bail Under NDPS Act: Delhi 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